Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Amendment to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the following Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 242, line 20, at end add 'but only if objection to locus standi or such rights has been made in a memorial duly deposited as aforesaid.'—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday, 31st May.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Incomes and Productivity

Mr. Longden: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will particularise the measures to be taken by the Government, with a view to ensuring that incomes do not exceed productivity.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper, Cmnd. 3235, and to my statement on 17th April —[Vol. 745, c. 92]—which, together, give an account of the steps the Government are taking to maintain an effective productivity, prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Longden: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Transport, who said last night on television that if we are to have proper planning we must

plan incomes? Is he aware that if one plans incomes one dictates incomes, and is it not clear that if one plans and dictates prices this will lead directly to the direction of labour?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between "plan" and "dictate" he had better think again, because his own leaders are committed to believing in planning. As has been made clear, we believe that prices and incomes should be planned to the greatest extent possible by voluntary agreement.

National Board for Prices and Incomes (Staff)

Mr. Biffen: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by what amount he expects the permanent staff of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to be increased on account of prospective legislation amending Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): Until the Bill has been considered by Parliament it would be premature to attempt such an estimate.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the existing evidence, which points to the indifferent and contentious nature of many of these reports, and the fact that they have had to be done with the help of vast numbers of outside consultants—whose names are never disclosed to the public or this House—does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should be able to give some assurance on this subject, certainly by the time the Bill is published?

Mr. Lee: No, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman is being too pessimistic. I see a future in which the Board will be dealing with issues of principle rather than dealing with so many individual issues. When the Bill is published, and we see how it is working, we will be able to make a better assessment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be published and whether he expects it to become law before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Lee: The Bill will be published shortly and I hope that it will become law before the Summer Recess.

Price Changes

Mr. Biffen: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by what means he proposes to encourage non-statutory supervision of price changes in the light of the Government's objective of promoting a voluntary prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Primarily through continued operation of the voluntary arrangements for early warning of price increases, concentrated on prices of economic significance, including those of importance in the cost of living.

Mr. Biffen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the T.U.C. has accepted responsibility to do some supervision of wage claims, the C.B.I. has openly declared that it is not prepared to undertake a similar rôle for the supervision of prices? Since the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said, when he left the Department of Economic Affairs, that he did not believe that one could have a system of price control, is it not clear that the policy will operate by differing standards for prices than for incomes?

Mr. Lee: In that event, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman has been opposing a compulsory system. For our part, we believe that, after the initial period, during which both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. will be building up the machinery which they intend to use, we can then have a fully voluntary system, and I believe that it will work effectively.

Prices (Control)

Mr. Molloy: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what additional measures will now be taken to control prices to the same degree as wages.

Mr. Moonman: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in view of the difficulties experienced in recent months in containing price increases, a new mechanism is now contemplated to deal with the problem.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The Government will continue to see that the criteria for prices behaviour are properly applied. I

would not accept any implication that the policy has been applied more rigorously to pay than to prices during the present period of severe restraint.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the retail sector, as any housewife will tell him, this criteria is not applying? Since there is in the Department of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a section known as the wages inspectorate, will my right hon. Friend consider establishing within his domain a prices inspectorate?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is really asking us to establish something on the French model whereby, I believe, more than 20,000 people are supervising the prices issue alone. For our part, we reaffirm that the position on prices has been held very well indeed. If my hon. Friend is challenging the validity of the Index of Retail Prices, I suggest that the Ministry of Labour, with the assistance of the T.U.C. and other informed people who are on the Committee which runs that Index, will tell him that they believe that although it is not, of course, an exact replica of every price movement, it is a good return of the movement of retail prices generally.

Captain W. Elliot: Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold to the Government estimate that, after July, wages will rise by approximately 6 per cent.?

Mr. Lee: We were not referring to the period after July: we were talking about this year. If we are accurate about this estimate of a 6 per cent. increase in wages, when we know perfectly well that we will not get that kind of increase in productivity, it follows we shall have quite a job to restrain prices. If the House looks at what happened since the beginning of 1966, it is obvious that incomes had risen by at least twice the level of prices and—it is no good arguing against economic facts—if that increase goes on prices will rise.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that if the Government had shown that they were controlling prices and dividends as strictly as they were controlling wages the workers would have been behind them to a man?

Mr. Lee: Again, my hon. Friend repeats something that is utterly wrong. Wages have increased during this period. I said publicly a few days ago that wages have been increased for 4½ million people this year. Over the period of the standstill and severe restraint, dividends are down by £60 million and prices have increased by only 1¾ per cent.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Does not the Question on the Order Paper ask what additional measures will now be taken to control prices, and do not all the Minister's answers boil down simply to "No, Sir"?

Mr. Lee: No, Sir. They boil down to the proposition that we have looked at prices, and have been as strict on prices as we have been on incomes.

National Plan

Mr. Marten: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what effect the reduction in the projected growth rate has had upon the National Plan.

Mr. M. Stewart: As I have told the House on more than one occasion, the assumptions and projections in the National Plan are being revised.

Mr. Marten: Does not a cut in the projected growth rate mean that targets will have to be lowered by about one quarter? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying at election time that Labour's plans could not be achieved unless we had a 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. growth rate? Does not the present position mean that Labour's plans must be cut by about one half?

Mr. Stewart: It is quite clear that if one has a lower growth rate there are many things one has to revise. I have explained to the House, and I have put in the Library a document describing how we are dealing with this task.

Growth Rate

Mr. Peyton: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what grounds the National Economic Development Council, according to his paper on planning, came to the conclusion that though the 25 per cent. growth over five years could not be

realised, exercises based on such estimates had become no less relevant and were indeed more important than ever.

Mr. M. Stewart: The paper does not attribute such a view to the Council.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my apologies that I should have read such a meaning into the paper, but is he aware that it is so obscure and so full of aerated piffle that it is exceedingly difficult to understand what it does mean? What is the point of carrying out one of these exercises based on an invalid premise?

Mr. Stewart: The paper is not difficult, although the hon. Gentleman may find it so. The point at issue now is quite a simple one. The paper points out that there are certain courses of action—those, for example, mentioned in the check list to the National Plan—which are at least as relevant and important now, despite the fact that the numerical projections have to be revised.

Prices Policy

Mr. Marquand: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper explaining the assumptions on which his prices policy is based and the aims it is designed to achieve.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The aims of the policy for prices are to improve the competitive position of the economy, to restrain increases in prices and to encourage necessary investment. These aims have been endorsed by the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. We have set out in the White Paper—Cmnd. 3235—the criteria which are to govern prices behaviour, including price reductions, during the twelve months after 30th June, 1967.

Mr. Marquand: But is my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper is rather vague in what it says about prices? With reference to one of his earlier answers, could not my right hon. Friend look at the much more effective form of price control they have in France, and particularly at the way in which the French are trying to use price control as a way of stimulating productivity; and see whether we can apply something of that


type here, particularly in view of our decision to apply to enter the Common Market?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend has mentioned prices in France. I hope that we shall be a little more successful in that respect than the French seem to me to have been during my visits to France in the last few years. There have been 974 proposals for price increases. Of these, 137 have been rejected or withdrawn, 614 have been accepted—in a number of cases, after modification—and 223 are still under consideration. Although we are not creating the kind of detailed analysis that my hon. Friend mentions exists in France, we are doing everything possible to ensure that where prices increase they increase only against the criteria of the White Paper.

Mr. Higgins: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that British Rail is under the impression that a price increase may be justified when the demand for advertising space has gone up? Does he not think that to be a good principle and would he not extend it to the private sector?

Mr. Lee: I would not say that the private sector has done so badly itself on the criteria.

Mr. Tinn: Whatever doubts may be expressed about the accuracy of the prices index, does not my right hon. Friend agree that no one seems to mind quoting it when it suits him?

Mr. Lee: There are many millions of workers whose increases are based on the retail index, and have been for many years—including the period when the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was Minister of Labour— and I do not think that any of them would care to say now that they were deprived of increases to which they were entitled.

Mr. Stratton Mills: If the Prices and Incomes Board and the right hon. Gentleman's Department have to examine what is a reasonable profit, would they consider laying down some guide lines so that the appropriate return on capital as a fair investment can be seen for a wide variety of industries?

Mr. Lee: I have answered this question before. I am sure that the hon.

Gentleman would agree that one cannot lay down specific terms unless one looks at such things as the risk involved, the capital necessary, and that kind of thing, differentiating between different industries.

Economic Growth

Mr. Dickens: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give the average annual rate of economic growth now expected over the period 1964 to 1970.

Mr. M. Stewart: Not until the planning studies now in hand have been completed.

Mr. Dickens: Would my right hon. Friend accept that, based on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, and projecting the figures forward for the three years to 1970, we shall achieve an average of 2·7 per cent. per annum compound over the six years; and that this rate of economic growth is lower than in any other period over the preceding decade?

Mr. Stewart: I expect that my hon. Friend's arithmetic is correct, but it overlooks what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear; first, that this was a provisional estimate and, secondly, that he trusted that we should do better than this.

Mr. Marten: On what basis was the estimate made?

Mr. Stewart: On the normal forecasting techniques—[Interruption.]—but I would emphasise that this was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House as a provisional estimate based on certain assumptions. In my own speech on the Budget Statement, I developed the things that it would be necessary to do to help to improve on this estimate.

Mr. Dickens: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will state the estimated percentage increase in economic growth in the calendar year 1967, compared with the calendar year 1966.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11th and 17th April.

Mr. Dickens: But is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was characteristically vague on this point. He said that for the period to December, 1967, compared with December, 1966, there would be an increase of 3 per cent. That is rather a different thing from comparing a calendar year with the preceding calendar year. Would my right hon. Friend accept that the real figure for 1967 over 1966 would be 1·5 per cent.? Is this not utterly unsatisfactory, and should we not therefore end the period of deflation at once?

Mr. Stewart: I do not accept a figure like that. I entirely agree that the rate of growth is not at present satisfactory, but in his first Question my hon. Friend asked for certain figures which can be deduced from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speeches. The real point is what growth we can expect in the future, and what measures we must take to that end. That is part of the planning exercise now being conducted.

Industrial Reorganisation Corporation

Mr. Hooley: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will give a general direction to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to consult representatives of trade unions whose members will be directly affected, before carrying through or taking part in any merger or reorganisation of two or more industrial firms.

Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend accept that on this side of the House we very much welcome the activities of this Corporation? Will he give an assurance that it will not operate simply as a kind of orthodox marriage broker but will take account of the social significance of mergers which it is designed to produce?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, it will certainly do that. I would be very ready to listen to any views which may be relevant to its work, whether from the trade unions or from other quarters, but the specific question was that I should give a direction that the Corporation was itself to consult trade union representatives. I am not sure that the trade unions themselves would wish that. They might

prefer discussions to be conducted with the employers with whom they are accustomed to deal.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman say for what reasons Mr. Grierson has retired before he was due to do so? Was it because he was not used to this kind of meddling from Government sources?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member should not make a suggestion like that. The reasons for Mr. Grierson's retirement have been given in the Press and there is no truth at all in what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that industry very much welcomes the setting up of the I.R.C.? Can he say on which industries its intervention will be made public?

Mr. Stewart: I was glad to hear the first part of that supplementary question. The second part goes wide of this Question and should be put on the Order Paper.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Marquand: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what effect he estimates that the proposed regional employment premium will have on the annual average seasonally-adjusted rate of unemployment in the regions concerned, and in the United Kingdom as a whole, between the end of 1967 and 1970.

Mr. M. Stewart: If the premium were to be introduced at the median rate of 30s. per week for men it might reduce the average disparity between unemployment in development areas and the country as a whole by around a half over a period of the order of three to five years from its introduction. It is not possible to be more precise than this. Unemployment in the United Kingdom as a whole might fall by about half as much as the fall in the development areas.

Mr. Marquand: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us on this side of the House regard this proposal as one of the most imaginative in regional policy that we have yet had?


But is he further aware that it becomes clear from his Answer that it is not going to have a very significant effect on unemployment in the regions between now and 1970? Will he say what other steps the Government will take to increase regional development in the short term?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think I could agree with my hon. Friend that this is not going to have a significant effect, but I quite agree that this is only one measure and we must proceed with the rest of regional policy, with the proper use of industrial development certificates, with the policy of dispersal, with advance factories and improving the infrastructure of the regions. It is one measure among many, but I think it a useful one.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will introduce legislation to implement the proposal for a regional employment premium.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Government are still considering the advice they are receiving on the proposal.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend make an early statement, because many of us in development areas—for example, in the North-East—believe that an early statement of the Government's intention to go ahead with this proposal could deter firms from moving out of these areas as some firms are doing?

Mr. Stewart: I shall take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I said when introducing this proposal that although we wanted full discussion it must not be dilatory and I have this still very much in mind.

Sir J. Eden: What is the assessment which the right hon. Gentleman puts on the representations or reactions which have so far come to him?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think it would be sensible for me to give a sort of provisional and perhaps ex-parte judgment. There will be further occasions to come.

Dr. Dunwoody: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether, when the legislation is introduced, there will be, as a part of it, machinery to enable a variation in premium as between one

area and another and a variation in the premium itself from time to time so that the premium may be an effective means of ending the problem of hard-core unemployment in development areas?

Mr. Stewart: I note that question with interest, but I think it is exactly the kind of question I should not answer now. I do not want the process to be prolonged. Our job in the fairly short term is to weigh up the representations we have received before bringing legislation before the House. The view expressed by my hon. Friend has, of course, come to us from more than one quarter.

Price Increases (Complaints)

Mr. Hamling: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many complaints he has received alleging unjustifiable price increases in the last six months; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Most complaints about prices are made direct to the Ministers immediately concerned with the goods and services in question. In the six months to 30th April, 1967, some 9,000 complaints in all were received. Examination of the complaints showed that the great majority of them related to increases which had either been justified under the relevant criteria for prices behaviour or had occurred before the July standstill. Nevertheless, the flow of complaints has played its part in encouraging suppliers to do all they can to restrain price increases. We will continue to keep price increases and proposals for increases under proper surveillance.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to publish a White Paper giving details of the various complaints and the so-called criteria that are advanced to justify some of these increases?

Mr. Lee: The criteria have been published in the White Paper to which I made reference. I sometimes think that the great difference between incomes and prices is that, whereas it may well be that some trade unions do not mind being turned down by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, some employers do because it is not very good for their image.

Mr. Mawby: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the complaints were complaints against nationalised industries?

Mr. Lee: No, I could not offhand, but if the hon. Member puts that Question on the Order Paper I will give him an Answer.

Mrs. Thatcher: How many of the complaints were found to be justified?

Mr. Lee: I gave the answer to that in an answer a few minutes ago. If the hon. Lady looks it up, she will find that I gave the answer.

Rents (Control)

Mr. Hamling: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now take the same power to control rents as he proposes in order to control incomes.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I do not consider that this would be the right course to take. Rents of virtually all private sector housing are already subject to the Rent Acts. As my hon. Friend knows, the rents of local authority houses are not on a profit-making basis and are subsidised to an appreciable extent. Where increases in such rents are necessary because of the financial obligations and circumstances of local authorities, the latter have been urged to make the fullest use of rebates to protect tenants of modest means.

Mr. Hamling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding the operation of rent rebates, in my local authority area council tenants have had their rents increased three times in two-and-a-half years? Does he not think that this goes completely counter to the Government's policy on prices?

Mr. Lee: This is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. My hon. Friend mentioned council houses. That question has a direct relevance to the issue of rates. If we were to have rents pegged, rates would go up.

Mr. Biffen: Since the kernel of the prices and incomes policy is an exhortation, unbacked by Statute, for notification or! increases of either prices or incomes, why on earth cannot the right hon. Gentleman also ask for notification of increases in rents?

Mr. Lee: The answer is that we do. During the period of standstill and restraint a very small number of local authorities, very small indeed, have raised the level of their rents. If the question asked by the hon. Member means that he is asking us to take compulsory powers for notification, we shall take note of his request.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers' rents increased last year in England by 6·5 per cent. and in Scotland by 6·9 per cent.? What is he going to do about this?

Mr. Lee: We may have to look at the affluence of Scottish farmers and see if we can reduce it in some way.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole basis of acceptance of the prices and incomes policy rests on making it appear fair to the ordinary citizen and that when people who live in council houses see their rents going up substantially while rents in the private sector are frozen, they see that as an inequity which they are not prepared to accept?

Mr. Lee: I accept entirely the first point made by the hon. Member. It is not only a question of being fair; it has to be seen to be fair. I thoroughly agree and we will do everything we can to ensure that. But the hon. Member is quite wrong in saying that, whereas council house rents are going up, others are frozen. I refer him to the Rent Act, 1965. I hope that he will study it.

Mr. Lubbock: I was on the Committee and I know it by heart.

Industrial Production (Growth)

Mr. Peyton: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what benefits he expects to flow to industry from the estimate of a growth of production potential based on a range of figures with a difference of 1 per cent. a year between the higher and lower figures; and if he is satisfied in the light of experience that such a margin of error is sufficient.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): The two figures would not so much represent a margin of error as the implications of


alternative assumptions. Their value would be that they would help industry to form a view of what is possible, on which planning assumptions could be based. One per cent. is quoted in my right hon. Friend's paper for illustrative purposes.

Mr. Peyton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that making these forecasts can be highly misleading and, therefore, very damaging to investment programmes? Does not he agree that the fiasco of the National Plan ought to have warned the Government against taking the arrogant path of claiming omniscience, which they do now?

Mr. Shore: No. The whole purpose of asking for alternative assumptions on which plans can be based is to ensure that errors are not repeated, or to ensure that different possibilities are fully taken account of by firms when they make their own plans.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Bletchley and Bedford

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Postmaster-General (1) how many people are now on the waiting list for a telephone in Bletchley; and what steps he proposes to take to reduce this waiting list; and
(2) when the new Bedford Telephone Exchange will be brought into service, including the installation of additional equipment with subscriber trunk dialling facilities at Bletchley; and whether he will make a statement.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): At 30th April, the waiting list at Bletchley totalled 472. An exchange extension and additional local lines, coupled with the provision of STD facilities, will enable all applicants to be connected in the late summer. The new Bedford exchange will be brought into service in July; subscriber-trunk-dialling facilities will be provided, at both Bletchley and Bedford, in September.

Mr. Maxwell: I welcome my hon. Friend's Answer, which assures my constituents who are affected that the exchange is at last to start operating in July. May I ask him what steps he could take to speed up the connection

in particular of the 420 people who need telephones in Bletchley and who have been waiting for them for such a long time? This is interfering with business as well as with the social amenities which they so urgently need in this growing town which is accommodating Londoners on such an increasing scale.

Mr. Slater: I can appreciate my hon. Friend's interest, in view of the correspondence we have had from him. The Bedford switchboard, which at present handles trunk calls from Bletchley and the Bedford area generally, is seriously overloaded and we could not cover the additional traffic which would be originated by new customers. Nevertheless, we are doing whatever we can to help.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been great concern in Bedford about the telephone situation and that his reply that the exchange will at last be in operation this July will cause a great deal of happiness amongst my constituents?

Oral Answers to Questions — Rentals

Mr. Longden: asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he now has regarding telephone rentals.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): None, at present.

Mr. Longden: Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind that the telephone service of the Post Office has made a large profit? There does not seem to be much justification for increasing the rentals. The higher the rental, the heavier the burden upon the smaller user.

Mr. Short: The rentals are losing £12 million a year at present. The Post Office has to make a return of 8 per cent. on capital. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries pointed out the imbalance in our tariffs. I said in the House on 15th March that we needed to look at this to get the balance right again. I am looking at it at present.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend still considering some possibility of special rentals for the crippled, disabled and people in that category?

Mr. Short: I would not like to embark upon concessionary tariffs in the Post


Office, because it is extremely difficult to know where to draw the line once one starts doing that.

Mr. Brian: To what extent has Government policy on rentals affected the waiting list for telephones?

Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the year's rental in advance, I think that it has held the waiting list as it is, but no more than that.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Illegal Radio Stations

Mr. Faulds: asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to prevent intervention by illegal radio stations in local or national elections.

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I already have power to proceed against persons who broadcast illegally within this country, and legislation to suppress unauthorised offshore broadcasting stations has already been introduced.

Mr. Faulds: May I point out how unsatisfactory——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend realise how unsatisfactory that Answer is, because an illegal political broadcast was made last Saturday on Radio 270 by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Faulds: In view of this, would my right hon. Friend take steps to have the result of the York municipal elections today declared invalid?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be best if hon. Gentlemen made broad political criticisms rather than individual personal ones.

Mr. Short: That part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do not underestimate the seriousness of this situation. I hope that no one will underestimate the seriousness and un-wholesomeness of this situation. It is the first time in peacetime that this country has been subjected to a stream of misleading propoganda from outside our territorial waters. I do not

think that it is a matter for joking. I think that it is an extremely serious matter. I hope that hon. Members who have been dragging their feet about closing down these stations will cease to do so from now on.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make it quite clear to the House that I have given notice to the hon. Member for Haltemprice. I am hardly responsible for his nonappearance.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Iremonger: Will the right hon. Gentleman come and explain this very important matter in Trafalgar Square on Saturday afternoon?

Mr. Short: I do not know what is going to happen in Trafalgar Square on Saturday afternoon, but I explain this matter wherever I go and I am prepared to stand up for this wherever I go. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends take any pride in this development, they are not very good friends of democracy. That is all I can say.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Reading Research Unit (Finance)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make finance available to make it possible for the Reading Research Unit to carry out specific pieces of educational research arising out of the initial teaching alphabet experiment, as an alternative to the long-term support originally requested by the unit.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The Department has made grants of over £19,000 to the unit for specific research projects, and is unable to provide more funds for the reasons explained by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate on this subject on 21st April last.—[Vol. 745, c. 1053–62.]

Mr. Barnes: Are not the facts that this team will break up—in fact, it is breaking up and members of it are going to America—just at a point when their researches are starting to show some very


interesting results? Is not this a great pity?

Mr. Roberts: I do not accept everything that my hon. Friend has said. The Director of the unit may, if he wishes, put proposals for a prototype project research to the various bodies which stand ready to consider any worth-while proposal of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Dogs (Lung Cancer Experiments)

Mr. Burden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ban repetition in this country of the United States experiment in which dogs are forced to smoke cigarettes in investigations in lung cancer.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I cannot prejudge what experiments of this nature could properly be allowed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

Mr. Burden: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it has already been established in this country that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer in human beings? Therefore, is it human or feasible, or does it serve any good purpose, to prove that it also causes lung cancer in animals if they are forced to smoke cigarettes?

Mr. Taverne: First, no authority has so far been given for this kind of experiment in connection with dogs. Secondly, I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman that no useful further research can be done into the causes of lung cancer.

Mr. Rankin: If no authority has been given for the experiment, and as it is an offence to the public mind that this should be going on, cannot my hon. and learned Friend do anything to stop it?

Mr. Taverne: In view of the public concern which there is in cases connected with dogs, this is a matter which would almost certainly be referred to the Advisory Committee on the Workings of the Cruelty to Animals Act. That question has not yet arisen in relation to this experiment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Rhodesia

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of widespread dubiety and the need to maintain the rights and interests of Rhodesian British subjects in Zambia and elsewhere, he will make clear which functions of the Rhodesian Government have, and which have not, been assumed by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): The United Kingdom Government and I have from time to time and as occasion required exercised the legislative and executive powers conferred by the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, and by Orders in Council made under that Act. Apart from these powers. Her Majesty's Government have not assumed any of the functions of the Government of Southern Rhodesia.
As regards the protection of the interests of Rhodesian citizens in other countries—which has never been a function of the Government of Southern Rhodesia or, indeed, of the Government of any Colony—I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 2nd May. —[Vol. 746, c. 297–8.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not clear that the Government accept or disclaim responsibility just as they think fit? As regards the protection of Rhodesian British subjects, as there has been, in Her Majesty's Government's view, a change in the position of Rhodesia since U.D.I., is it not up to the United Kingdom Government to protect Rhodesian British subjects in trouble in other countries?

Mr. Bowden: Although there is undoubtedly a right in the British Government to act on behalf of Rhodesian citizens, there is no obligation. In the case which, I think, the hon. Gentleman has in mind, we did so.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the figures recently given for the cost of sanctions, whether he will now


recognise thede factogovernment of Rhodesia.

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: Has not enough of the combined wealth of Britain and Rhodesia now been spent to demonstrate policy irreconcilables as old as the European occupation of Southern Africa? If such sums have to be spent, would they not be more appropriately spent on dealing with the discrimination disclosed by the P.E.P. Report within the United Kingdom, where we have some influence, rather than in Rhodesia, where we have sacrificed practically all that we had?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked that, on 11th November, 1965, Her Majesty dismissed the Rhodesian Ministers from office. When they return to a position of legality, we can discuss the position, and any cost on either side could then be saved.

Mr. Tinn: Can my right hon. Friend explain how sanctions can be claimed to be so damaging and expensive by hon. Members opposite and, at the same, be held by them to be ineffective?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. It is not my responsibility to explain the minds of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted reports that contracts have been entered into between M. Boussac and the Rhodesians for the exchange of textiles and tobacco, and has he made any efforts to investigate the validity of these reports?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Sir; I have seen the reports. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that investigations are taking place to see what can be done to prevent this sort of illegal action taking place.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend ignore these pro-Smith pleas from hon. Members opposite who, since U.D.I., have given comfort and assistance to the traitors in Salisbury?

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Internal Air Services, Scotland (Fares)

Mr. Grimond: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the increase of from 25 per cent.

to 50 per cent. on some internal air fares in Scotland conforms with the prices and income standstill; and if he will make a statement.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I presume that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the application for increases in the applicable tariffs made to the Air Transport Licensing Board by all airlines operating domestic services. Increases proposed on internal Scottish services form a part of this. The application has not yet been heard by the Licensing Board, which is statutorily bound to have regard to the prices and incomes policy. I cannot in any way prejudge its decision.

Mr. Grimond: I do not ask the President of the Board of Trade to prejudge the matter, but will he assure us that the prices freeze applies to the nationalised industries, and will he bear in mind that few things could be more damaging to Highland development than this steep increase in fares?

Mr. Jay: I am statutorily entitled to listen to what the right hon. Gentleman says. As a general principle, the nationalised industries are not exempt from the prices and incomes policy, but the Air Transport Licensing Board is the proper authority to consider this in the first instance.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the airlines will adopt the practice which is being advocated for British Railways, namely, differentiation between services run on commercial lines and the losses incurred on lines run for social reasons?

Mr. Jay: I would not like to give an absolute assurance without thinking that over further, but I am sure that the airlines will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the expected loss this year on B.E.A. internal services is £300,000? We have for many years given a subsidy to Messrs. MacBrayne, on the West Coast, to operate both sea and road transport services. Could not that be considered in this case, allowing the nationalised airline to compete on an even keel with them?

Mr. Jay: I am aware of those facts generally. There is no doubt that B.E.A. has contributed greatly to better services in Scotland, at some financial cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — Earnings and Exports

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a White Paper to show the Government's calculation of the relationship between earnings inflation and United Kingdom export performance.

Mr. Jay: Our export performance is determined by many factors, including changes in wage costs in this and other countries. An article on "International Comparisons of Costs and Prices" will appear in the May issue of "Economic Trends".

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted from recent replies to me and other hon. Members that the countries with the highest rate of earnings inflation in recent years, such as Italy and Japan, have had the best record of export performance? Does not this cast doubt on the whole basis of the Government's incomes policy?

Mr. Jay: I am not sure whether by earnings inflation the hon. Gentleman means inflation of profits or inflation of wages and salaries. Whichever he means, this is only one of the factors affecting comparative performance in exports, though I agree that in either case it is an important one.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech about the economic situation made to a Labour Party meeting in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, on Sunday, 2nd April, 1967.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have already done so, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Yes, I am aware of that now, but will my right hon. Friend agree that as that speech showed the remarkable achievements of the British people, initiated by Government legislation— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, this is so; hon. Members opposite must not be so annoyed at British——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt himself.

Mr. Molloy: I was dealing with the cacophonous cackling coming from the cantankerous Conservatives opposite, Mr. Speaker.
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these achievements ought to be much more publicised, particularly those aspects which assist local government to help ordinary people in the matter of rates and houses? All these things are very important, so will my right hon. Friend see to it that they are given much more publicity and not be so shy of these achievements?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I made the speech to a large meeting. What happens to its ultimate reporting is not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMY (PUBLIC CONTROL)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on his plans for further public control of the economy, including the aircraft construction industry and the North Sea gas-field.

The Prime Minister: As to the general Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) on 23rd March; as to the aircraft industry, I would refer him to the speech of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Aviation in this House on 21st November last; and as to the North Sea gas field, I would refer him to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power gave to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), on 20th December last.—[Vol. 743, c. 331. Vol. 736, c. 961. Vol. 738, c. 1164.]

Mr. Whitaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if one approaches these questions without political prejudice, all the objective evidence favours these two measures? Is he aware that both the Economist magazine and the Plowden Commission recommended the nationalisation of the aircraft industry, and, as


regards the North Sea gas-field, is he aware that the public very much resent the action of the oil companies in trying to refuse the fair and generous price which the Cabinet have decided upon——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have fair shares at Question Time.

The Prime Minister: As is well known, I always approach all these matters completely free of political prejudice. As regards the aircraft industry, the Government's proposals, which are now under negotiation with the firms concerned, were announced by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Aviation. As regards North Sea gas, I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said some very wise words on this question yesterday in a public statement.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Before the Prime Minister allows his enthusiasm for public control to become too unrestrained, will he consult Mr. Kosygin and some of the senior planners of Gosplan who are now making considerable efforts to restore the profit motive and other forms of incentive?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that Mr. Kosygin had yet fallen prey to the proposals of hon. Members opposite and was thinking of denationalising his aircraft industry.

Mr. James Johnson: Did not the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power show that, without any dubiety, the oil companies can make a profit, a good profit, at 2½. a them, although they are now sticking out for 3½d. and saying that if they do not get it they will not prospect further? As a vacuum would be left in those circumstances, is there not a case for some form of public ownership?

The Prime Minister: While the negotiations are continuing, it would not be right for me to comment. I have referred to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power yesterday. My hon. Friend will be aware, also, that at least half of each of the areas licensed will revert to the Crown at the end of the initial period of six years, that is, from 1970 onwards.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibilities for Voluntary Community Service.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable amount of frustrated idealism among young people nowadays, and would he consider giving an imaginative lead to young people so that instead of occupations like cadet corps at school they can do some useful welfare work, such as the reclamation of waste land?

The Prime Minister: Inevitably, the publicity given to certain delinquent activities among a small minority of people diverts attention from the very fine spirit of idealism and service of a very large number of our young people —church people and others. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science, has special responsibility for all these matters, including voluntary services by youth.

Mr. Sharples: Can the Prime Minister say when he expects publication of the Seebohm Report?

The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a pretty poor comment on the Opposition benches that they should laugh when the idealism of British youth is mentioned?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL BENEFITS

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental working party to study the subsidies in cash and kind at present being made available without test of need in various ways to the public, and to study the various kinds of means tests at present being applied to the public by Government Departments.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Iremonger: Whilst I assure the Prime Minister that I understand his reluctance, would he give thought to the proposition that social benefits are bound


to be either universal and inadequate or adequate and selective, and that the public is entitled to a little more frankness and less humbug?

The Prime Minister: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's last remarks, because I remember some of the speeches made in the recent debate on the social services concerning family endowment a week or two ago. I am well aware of the views of the Opposition that these things should be on a much more widely means-tested basis, but I would not agree with it.

Sir E. Boyle: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the growing concern among university vice-chancellors about capital grants for universities? Does this not point to the clear need for more positive discrimination in social expenditure between the essential and the less essential?

The Prime Minister: These are matters more appropriate for debate. There has been a recent debate on the question of the discrimination the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Of course, in certain matters such as rent rebate schemes, uniformity is being sought as far as possible throughout the country, and we all know the work of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I could not go along with the general proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barber: Is the Prime Minister saying that with the provision of additional benefits for those people most in need, which has been promised for the summer, there will be no expansion of the area of the means test?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should await the statement we shall be making on this question before the end of the summer. He will then no doubt express his opinion on it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say at what period since 1947 any element of selectivity has been applied to the subsidies given to the wealthy farmers of this country?

The Prime Minister: That raises a rather wider issue, which is usually taken up when the House is discussing agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the economic situation at Dunoon on 20th April represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor's claim that the Government have reverted to stop-go is somewhat inaccurate? As the Chancellor pointed out that under the Labour Government the increment in the G.N.P. declined by 50 per cent. each year, would it not be fairer to describe it as a policy of full speed astern?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the measures that had to be taken to get the country into balance of payments surplus. If he studies the record of his own Government over 13 years he will find some very bad periods, even after they had been in office for 10 or 11 years.

Mr. Barber: Is the Prime Minister aware that even if the new target of 3 per cent. growth is achieved, which is by no means likely, on the Chancellor's own figures in that speech at Dunoon the overall annual rate of growth in the six years covered by the National Plan will be only just over 2½ per cent.?

The Prime Minister: As I have made clear, for the first 2½ years of these we have had to clear up the £800 million deficit the right hon. Gentlemen left. I know that the right hon. Member would like to forget about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Alibi."] The alibi was created by those who left us with the deficit. One big difference in our case is that we did not slash the social services as they did whenever they got into difficulty.

Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that although growth is very desirable the country is right behind him—[Interruption]—and the Government in their determination to repay our borrowing? [Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Recess is not until Saturday.

The Prime Minister: I was not able to hear every word of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but in the past three days we have been discussing some of the actions which might add to the rate of growth this country could achieve unaided. Certainly I am well aware that the bulk of the country will support measures to put the country on its feet again economically, even if we are carrying some of the unpopularity for the measures necessary because of the deficit.

Mr. Barber: rose——

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You appealed earlier in our proceedings for fair shares at Question Time. This is the right hon. Gentleman's second supplementary on this Question, and I do not think that that is fair shares.

Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barber: I only wanted to ask t he Prime Minister whether he realised that inadvertently he had not answered my question. I asked a straight question, whether he agreed that, on the Chancellor's own figures in the speech about which he is being asked, for the six years covered by the National Plan the growth rate will be only just over 2½ per cent.?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, if it is 3 per cent. for four years and less than 3 per cent for two, the average for six must be less than 3 per cent. I have explained that the 2½ years were spent getting the economy right because of the mess in which it was left by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Heath: As the situation is now as the Prime Minister has described it, can he now tell us how his programmes, which he himself has said are based on a growth rate of 4 per cent., will now be met?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have every confidence that the programmes will be met on the basis of the 3 per cent. or more which can be achieved over the next four years. The right hon. Gentleman should not calculate on their last four years until the election boom that caused the economic crisis, but on what their record was over 13 years.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very glad to note that the marriage of convenience consummated last night is now breaking down?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the activities of Ministers concerned with the accountability of nationalised industries that are diversifying.

The Prime Minister: Their activities are already fully co-ordinated, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Power has accepted full responsibility for making it clear to the industries under his control that where they diversify the subsidiaries should keep separate audited accounts? Is he also aware that the Minister of Transport has refused to order British Railways to do so in relation to the railway wagon works? Will he set right this anomaly?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that railway wagon works were an essential part of railway working, which they were not allowed to be over many years. The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers concerning my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is in respect of steel and brickworks. In the case of steel, there are fringe activities some distance from the steel industry proper. In the case of the brickworks which, quite properly, are run by the Coal Board, they are a separate activity and have a separate profit rating that must be reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILD POVERTY

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from the Association of Child Care Officers about child poverty; what were its terms; and what reply he has made.

The Prime Minister: They wrote to me on the 19th April, drawing my attention to a resolution about child poverty passed at their annual general meeting and asking for quick and effective Government action. In reply the Association


was reminded of the important measures which the Government have already put into operation for the benefit of the poorer members of the community, and of our announced intention to bring forward further proposals this summer.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that not mean that the Government are unable to give them quick and effective action?

The Prime Minister: In the sphere of social security covered by the representations of the Association, we have given quick and effective action over a very wide range of issues never dealt with before, and we have done it during 2½ years of economic difficulty. We have said that our statement on child poverty will be made before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint an additional Member of this House to assist the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs representing Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the arrangements outlined on 17th April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. A. Woodburn) are satisfactory.—[Vol. 745, c.1.]

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the excellent initiative of two and a half years ago in appointing a separate Minister and the action that my noble Friend Lord Chalfont has taken on peace-keeping problems seem to have lost their momentum? Will not my right hon. Friend let us build up a new head of steam in this direction by giving the House direct and distinct responsibilities in connection with the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: The House is able to question not only my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary but other Foreign Office Ministers who are Members. Any loss of momentum in peacekeeping activities has been due to the

fact that our initiative at the United Nations got held up and blocked mainly by a number of countries which, I am sure, would want to support it but were more concerned at the time with the Rhodesian problem.

Mr. A. Royle: Before the Prime Minister appoints any more Ministers of State at the Foreign Office, will he tell us what Lord Chalfont has been doing for the last two and a half years? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Chalfont was appointed to carry out disarmament negotiations? What success has he had?

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend was appointed to carry out disarmament negotiations and, as a result of initiatives taken by the Government, he has made great progress on the question of the Non-Proliferation Agreement. The Agreement requires signature by a large number of countries, and it is not within Lord Chalfont's power to dictate to other countries that they must sign it.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider using Members of Parliament instead of civil servants to lead various delegations to committees of the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: More has been done in this direction. Following the practice of the last Government and of the post-war Labour Government, our representation on some of the main committees and in the General Assembly has been undertaken by Members of this House.

Viscount Lambton: Does the Prime Minister mean that he is going ahead with the Non-Proliferation Treaty despite the effect this may have in Europe?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES COMMISSION (50th ANNIVERSARY)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir RICHARD GLYN: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of the Commonwealth


War Graves Commission which, on 21st May, will complete 50 years of service devoted to the commemoration of the dead of two world wars.

Mr. DAVID GRIFFITHS: TO ask the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission; and if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Gov-Government will continue to support this work.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. Q12 and Q13.
I am glad to have the opportunity of paying tribute to the Commission. It has in its charge, Sir, well over 1,100,000 individual graves and memorials for a further 770,000 war dead from two world wars in 150 countries and territories. Those who have had an opportunity of visiting any of the war cemeteries and memorials will appreciate the meticulous care which has gone into their creation and the devotion with which they have been looked after.
The United Kingdom Government supported the Commission's policies from its earliest days and as it completes its 50th year of service I think it right that our confidence and support should be reaffirmed. I am sending the following message of good will from Her Majesty's Government to the Commission:
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government and people in the United Kingdom and Colonial Territories, I express to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission our warmest congratulations on the attainment of its fiftieth anniversary. We reaffirm our confidence in the work of the Commission, which has brought comfort to so many bereaved families and has earned the admiration of countless visitors to the war cemeteries and memorials, and we pledge our support for the continuance of its work in the future.
I am sure that the whole House would wish to be associated with this message.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Heath: I behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to associate the Opposition with the tribute paid to the Commission by the Prime Minister. During all the years I was a member of the Government, and all the visits that I paid to graves being cared for by the Commission, I never heard a word

of criticism of any kind. That is a most remarkable tribute to a tremendous service.

Sir Richard Glyn: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement and the Government's message will be a great encouragement to the Commission and its staff all over the world and will give consolation and satisfaction to bereaved families and former comrades of men and women who gave their lives for freedom in two world wars?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn). We all owe a great debt of gratitude, also, to those right hon. and hon. Members of the House, both present and past, who have been members of the Commission over this period.

Mr. David Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we appreciate very much what he has said? I am sure that, if it were possible at all for officials and workmen of the Commission, where-ever they are in the world, who are doing this magnificent work, to do any more than they are doing, this statement would encourage them and that they will be comforted by his words.

Mr. Thorpe: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with everything which the Prime Minister has said in his expression of gratitude to the Commission and express, also, our great appreciation of all that has been done?

SOUTH ARABIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on South Arabia.
I have given the most careful thought to the situation in South Arabia and to what we need to do to bring about the transition to independence with the best practicable result, the least harm to our own interests and the greatest prospect of a stable and assured future for South Arabia.
In these discussions, I have had the advantage of the advice of my noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio,


Lord Shackleton, who returned for consultation after two weeks in Aden, and also of my noble Friend Lord Caradon, the Minister of State at the United Nations, and of many of the officials who are actually stationed there and, therefore, have first-hand experience of the situation in Aden and South Arabia.
The final stages of the transition to independence will increasingly give rise to important questions of an international and diplomatic character, as well as those of colonial administration. I have concluded that it would greatly help the Government in dealing with these problems to have available someone with wide experience both in international affairs and in the affairs of the Arab world.
I am arranging forthwith for Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to take over the High Commissionership in South Arabia. Sir Humphrey has been our Ambassador in a number of important posts at very significant times and this has included key Embassies in Arab countries. In addition to being, as the House well knows, a man with an independent mind, I am confident that he possesses the ability, the experience and the energy to accomplish the very difficult task that he has agreed to undertake. He will take up his post in about 10 days' time.
In making this appointment it will be necessary for me to recall the present High Commissioner, Sir Richard Turn-bull. Since there have been leaks—which I must tell the House I deeply regret— and, in consequence, a lot of uninformed speculation on this change, I wish to make it clear that there is no truth in any suggestions that there have been differences between Sir Richard and myself, either personally or over policy.
What is possibly more important is that the change casts no adverse reflection on Sir Richard, to whom I should like to pay a special tribute. We should all be grateful to him for carrying out a task of the utmost difficulty with courage, resolution and high ability after he had already completed a distinguished career in the public service.
Sir Richard Turnbull and Sir Humphrey Trevelyan are both public servants of notable distinction. The change is being made because I think that Sir Humphrey's experience and background

will bring new and valuable assets to bear on the problems at this stage. As a result of all the consultations I have had, I have become convinced that the situation which will develop over the remaining months will require a different kind of background and experience from that which Sir Richard has had, and it is for that reason alone that I am making this change.
The new High Commissioner must clearly now be given time to settle in. The House will understand, therefore, when I say that I believe that this is not the occasion to go into detail about the policy which I propose should be followed from here on. I realise, however, that the House will wish me to deploy, and will wish itself to be able to debate, a full statement of Government policy. Discussions therefore will, I hope, take place through the usual channels immediately to arrange for such a debate to take place as soon as the House wishes after the Recess.
I would like, however, today to assure the House that the policy I propose to pursue will be inspired by the aims already announced by the Government: first, the orderly withdrawal of our forces and the establishment of an independent South Arabia at the earliest possible date; secondly, to work in close consultation with all concerned and especially with the United Nations for the establishment of a broad-based Government by the time of independence; thirdly, on the basis of those principles to leave behind us a stable and secure Government in South Arabia.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I say at once that we will take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's offer of a debate. The Government have the right, of course, to change their executive officers and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there is no reflection on Sir Richard Turnbull's conduct of this most onerous task. Both Sir Richard and Sir Humphrey Trevelyan are most distinguished servants of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman said that Sir Humphrey has an independent mind; if the Government's policy is not to be changed, what flexibility has Sir Humphrey been given?
In that context, I have three short questions. Can Sir Humphrey, for instance, introduce federal police, who


could be entrusted with internal security well before independence day? Can he recommend retention of an air element in the base and the necessary troops to protect it? I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman used the words "orderly withdrawal at the earliest possible date" for independence; is that a change? I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not used those words before. Can Sir Humphrey therefore recommend that the date of independence and withdrawal should be changed?

Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning. Sir Humphrey has an independent mind and there is not the slightest doubt that he will tell us what he thinks, as well as telling other people what he thinks. And what we would like them to think—
As for changing over to the local police, I have made it clear very many times that I think that it would be a mistake for us to hand over the responsibility for internal security to those who could commit us while our forces were there. On the other hand, the phasing in of the local forces under our command is obviously a very important way of handling the whole arrangement.
The right hon. Gentleman's second question was about the air element. If he thinks about it, he will appreciate that the maintenance of an air element on the ground requires a very large number of troops for its protection. If we are talking about coming out, about conceding independence, then I suggest to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who know as much about this as I do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, indeed. This is a bilateral problem, a bipartisan problem. I go a wee bit further than that and say that it is more a partisan problem which I am trying to clear up.
If we keep air forces on the ground, we need large numbers of troops to protect them; and if we keep large numbers of troops there, then we do not get out. That is a factor which I have to take into account. If Sir Humphrey were to recommend any change in our present thinking, we would, of course, be willing to listen to whatever he had to say.

Mr, Philip Noel-Baker: While, with many of my hon. Friends, I would wish

to be associated with the tribute to Sir Richard Turnbull, who has done such courageous work during very difficult months and years, I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on having secured so able and so admirably qualified a High Commissioner as Sir Humphrey Trevelyan. On behalf of, I hope, all hon. Members, may I assure Sir Humphrey of our good wishes and our support?

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House will be grateful to Sir Richard and will wish every success to Sir Humphrey? What is the position of the United Nations Mission? Is it likely to return? Secondly, what political initiatives will Sir Humphrey take? For example, will he make attempts to meet the leaders of the two nationalist parties? Can he make recommendations about changing the federal structure in Aden, with the possibility of the secession of Aden Colony? Finally, will he be able to examine the possibilities of external treaties, defence and guarantees?

Mr. Brown: He will obviously carry out his duty, his work, his responsibilities, in the way which he thinks right. I am not hampering him and nor am I directing him as to whom he should see and how he handles the problem. On the other hand, if we are to get out of Aden and out of South Arabia in good order at an early date, we need a broader-based Government. I am absolutely certain that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan knows about this very well and will address himself very much to that problem.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I asked the Foreign Secretary what was the significance of the phrase "earliest possible date", which I do not think he has used before.

Mr. Brown: I have used it before. When I make a full statement on policy when we have a full debate, I will say exactly what I mean by that. Our predecessors used the words, "in 1968". I will try to be a little more precise when the time comes.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we very much welcome his assurance that the United Nations will continue to be associated with the solution of this problem? Will he assure the House that the possibility of some


United Nations presence in the difficult transitional period has not been ruled out?

Mr. Brown: Far from its being ruled out, I would be very willing for the United Nations to play a rôle. I am bound to say that that very long Sunday gave me some worries about how it should be done, but I am very much in favour of the United Nations having an important rôle here. This is one of the reasons why, before I finally made up my mind what to do, I called Lord Caradon back from New York, as well as Lord Shackleton back from Aden, to discuss it with them.

Mr. Donnelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while we all support the granting of freedom, freedom in itself is not a transitory gain? What assurance can he give that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that effective protection is given to the area until Egyptian troops are withdrawn from the Yemen?

Mr. Brown: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), with the honourable name which he has, that freedom has never been supported by troops from other countries standing there trying to guarantee it for one. This is the way that freedom is lost. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about N.A.T.O?"] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to know the difference. N.A.T.O. is an association of equal sovereign Powers I am talking, as was my hon. Friend, about a colonial-dominated State, with a so-called imperialist Power.
The situation is totally different, and until hon. Gentlemen opposite understand this, they will not understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) got us into the mess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe, and I tell my hon. Friend, that I will arrange the withdrawal in an orderly way. I will seek to leave behind a stable Government and a viable situation. But I believe that I will put all those Arab nationalists who are fighting for that at grave risk if I make them look like British stooges.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that every day longer that he stays in his job he is making a bigger mess of this? He spoke in his

statement of the orderly withdrawal of our forces, and the establishment of an independent South Arabia. Does that mean that we are not to withdraw until we have restored order? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that independence without protection against external aggression is a cynical farce?

Mr. Brown: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken just for a moment or two longer. I would like to read a letter which he wrote to me yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] His words today were that every day I spent in this office the greater the mess I am making of it. His letter of yesterday said:

"Dear George,

Splendid speech.

Well done.

Good luck.

Yours, Duncan."

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) wants to address me on a point of order.

Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. Is it not contrary to all the traditions of the House to raise in the House private and personal confidential exchanges between colleagues in the House of Commons?

Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order. Must it not also be understood that private messages of congratulations, which are to be denounced the following day by public messages of denunciation, ought also to be known?

Mr. Tinn: Mr. Tinn rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) might allow Mr. Speaker to deal with the point of order. He is seized of the issue on which he has to give a Ruling.
It is unusual for private correspondence and private comment between Members outside the House to be used in the House.

Mr. Sandys: Further to that point of order. May I, to avoid any misunderstanding, make it clear that my letter to the right hon. Gentleman was not concerned with his gross mishandling of the South Arabian problems, but was to do with the Common Market?

Mr. Brown: Mr. Brown rose—

Hon. Members: Resign. Disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it is clear to the House what the congratulations were about.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are elevating something to a greater degree than is necessary.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Foreign Secretary, as he has deplored the leakage about the replacement of Sir Richard Turnbull by Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, how this leakage arose, and whether an inquiry is being made into it? Will he confirm again that his statement indicates no change of policy on the part of the Government?

Mr. Brown: On the latter part of that question, I re-emphasise what I said in my statement. It does not indicate any change of policy. I repeat that I have had no differences with Sir Richard Turnbull—whom I much admire—about policy or any personal matters. I take the view that Sir Humphrey's background and experience would be more useful at this moment.
I deplore the leakage and I wish that I could find out where or how it happened. Like leakages from the other side, they are very difficult to trace. Inevitably, a lot of people had to be consulted about this. It was not a decision that I intended 10 take lightly. It was a decision involving a lot of people and it is, therefore, very hard to track down how it happened. That does not mean that I do not regret it, and if I could track down how it happened I would act.

Mr. Maxwell: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House, in view of the bloody mess left behind in South Arabia by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and of the fact that the United Nations is not anxious to pick up this hot potato, who will?
Further, could my right hon. Friend tell the House, since Sir Humphrey is known to be a friend of Nasser, the only man who has kept his honour at Suez, whether he will allow him to talk to Nasser about what contribution Nasser is willing to make to help bring about peace in South Arabia?

Mr. Brown: I do not want to be drawn too much into the latter part of that question. Frankly, I feel that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan is right for the job at this moment, with all the qualities that he brings to it. I would not like to exaggerate his knowledge and association with President Nasser. All the qualities that he brings to this job may help us towards the kind of solution that we would like to have.

Mr. Tapsell: In view of the fact that during a period of only slightly more than two years the Government have parted company with two distinguished and experienced High Commissioners, and that almost all our friends in that part of the world are highly critical of the Government's policy in Southern Arabia, should not the Government give further reflection to the wisdom of their policy?

Mr. Brown: Maybe the Opposition will reflect upon the number of High Commissioners that they changed. May I make it quite plain that I have not, in that sense, parted with Sir Richard Turnbull. I have made a decision, in what I believe to be the interests of this country, that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, at this point of time, given his background and experience, would be a better appointment for us, a better officer to carry out what we now need to do than would Sir Richard Turnbull. I stand by that, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite will consider what one will need in future, I would be very surprised if they do not come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Whitaker: While echoing what my right hon. Friend says in paying tribute to the courage of Sir Richard, may I say how warmly the appointment of Sir Humphrey is welcomed on these benches? Will the Foreign Secretary say that he will be treated with more confidence and co-operation by Her Majesty's Government and by Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary than he was on his last appointment in the Middle East, when he was Ambassador in Cairo, in October, 1956?

Mr. Brown: On a serious matter like this, I do not want to get involved in what went wrong there. My hon. Friend may be quite sure that my relations with


Sir Humphrey will be quite different from the relations with my predecessor, which he had in mind.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) about the inconsistency between freedom and military support is completely vitiated by what has happened in Malaysia? Does he say that the independence of judgment which he attributes to Sir Humphrey will entitle him to recommend, and have taken seriously a recommendation, that a blood-bath would result if British troops go next year and that, therefore, they should stay?

Mr. Brown: I rather hope that the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not arise. But my understanding with Sir Humphrey is very clearly understood by him and by me, that, before he recommends, I hope that he will report exactly how he feels and what he finds.
On the question of independence and troops and all that, of course there are always exceptions to prove the rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course. Nevertheless, if one looks at the Middle East, and at Asia generally, I have a feeling that we can do more harm by insisting on keeping British troops on the ground—I mean more harm to the local Ministers who want to take responsibility—than we could do good by removing this very obvious presence.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has offered a debate. Is he aware that we shall want the debate at the earliest possible moment after the Recess and that we will then expect a full and clear statement of policy from the Government? We were denied that in the Adjournment debate, and the Foreign Secretary has constantly refused it at Question Time. I must impress on him now that the House will expect a full statement of policy when we debate this matter after the Recess.

Mr. Brown: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that seriously and sincerely. There are reasons why I thought that that was the wrong moment. There are reasons why I think that this is the wrong moment—good reasons. I recognise that when we return

from the Recess, and Sir Humphrey is then already in Aden, a full statement of the policy and the purposes which we intend to pursue from here on should be made, and that the House should be able to debate them and give its verdict on them. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not run away from deploying them.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to debate this matter soon.

BRITISH ARMY (INFANTRY REORGANISATION)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make an announcement about a reorganisation of the infantry.
As the White Paper on Defence explained, a wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army is being carried out. The Government have already taken decisions about the organisation of the infantry. Since we must now consult a wider circle about putting these decisions into effect, I thought it right to inform the House about them now.
The infantry of the line is at present grouped into 13 brigades or large regiments and the Parachute Regiment. Each contains either three or four battalions. It has become clear that the present groupings are too small to meet the needs of the future.
Accordingly, the infantry of the line, apart from the Parachute Regiment, will be organised into five new larger groupings, to be known as "Divisions", each being formed by amalgamating either two or three brigades or large regiments. The names of the new Divisions will be as follows:
The Queen's Division, which will consist of The Queen's Regiment, The Fusilier Brigade, The Royal Anglian Regiment.
The King's Division, which will consist of The Lancastrian Brigade, The Yorkshire Brigade, The North Irish Brigade.
The Prince of Wales's Division, which will consist of The Wessex Brigade, The Mercian Brigade, The Welsh Brigade.
The Scottish Division, which will consist of The Lowland Brigade, The Highland Brigade.
The Light Division, which will consist of The Light Infantry Brigade, The Royal Green Jackets.
The Brigade of Guards, also, will become a Division.
These larger groupings will allow for contraction, or for expansion, with the least possible difficulty. In the new organisation it will be easier to smooth cut inequalities in manpower as between one battalion and another. The reorganisation will also make for efficiency in recruit training and economy.
The new organisation will be introduced by planned stages and will be complete by the middle of 1969.
The aim is to meet the needs of the future while preserving the best features of the regimental system.
I have arranged for details of the reorganisation to be available in the Library and they will also be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made a very important statement which will have far-reaching, perhaps very far-reaching, consequences for the future of the British Army and that it will be necessary to debate it as soon as may be practicable, especially as it has, apparently, had to be made on the day before the House rises for the Recess?
Meanwhile, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this: does he deny that a main object of this reorganisation is to make possible a substantial reduction in the number of the infantry? If so, would it not have been more logical, more candid, and more manly to announce his decision on that major point first and the reorganisation afterwards so that this might be considered by the House and the country in a proper manner?

Mr. Healey: No. I know very well that if I had waited another three, six or nine months, however long it was necessary to wait before fixing the long-term size of the Army, I should have been under continuous criticism from the benches opposite because of the rumours and leaks which were continuously spreading about the formation of the large

divisions on which it has been necessary, as the House may know, to consult colonels of regiments already. It would have been impossible to keep this quiet.
I felt that the only right and honourable thing to do was to tell the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, if he reflects on the matter, will recognise that I was right.

Mr. Powell: But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the rumours and anxieties which he so much deplores relating to the future size of the infantry will continue until he does make his announcement?

Mr. Healey: Yes, I do, and for that reason I shall make that announcement as soon as I possibly can. But I am not in a position to make it this afternoon.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the forecasts that this will mean a substantial reduction in the Army are justified? Is he aware that a distinguished soldier like Field Marshal Montgomery has recently called for very, very substantial reductions in the Army?

Mr. Healey: I have noted with great interest and some approval a number of remarks made by the noble Field Marshal on more than one occasion in recent weeks. What I can tell the House, as I have told the House on many occasions, is that it will be necessary to reduce somewhat the ceilings of all three Services before the Defence Review is completed. I made this clear a year ago and was taken to task by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for doing so.

Mr. Monro: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this decision will be received with grave disquiet in Scotland? Can he assure the House that the eight Scottish regiments will retain their separate identities?

Mr. Healey: I should like to make it clear that this new organisation does not affect the separate identity of the individual regiments. They will keep their insignia, although at some later time it may be agreed to be desirable to make some rationalisation in dress. The existing cap badges will remain, at any rate for the time being, although again, at a


later stage—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite should know that when they created large regiments out of existing regiments they introduced a new cap badge for members of the large regiments. It will be similarly necessary at the appropriate stage to introduce a new cap badge for members of the divisions, but we do not foresee that stage at the moment.

Mr. Turton: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that recruits will be able to go into the battalion of their choice, wherever possible?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ramsden: Would the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the reason why the present brigade organisation is judged to be too small to meet future needs? Why have the Government abandoned the previous policy of moving towards the large regiment which hitherto has been actively pursued by the brigades?

Mr. Healey: I think that there were two main reasons. First, there are serious manpower inequalities in recruitment to the various brigades. If there is to be free movement of officers and men between one battalion and another, it is necessary to group battalions into rather larger groupings than the existing large regiments. Secondly, as a result of this regrouping it will be possible considerably to reduce the overhead costs of organising the infantry. It will be possible, for example, in time to get rid of some existing depots.

Mr. James Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, at battalion level, the Scottish and other regiments will retain their present names? Will he also say whether he has taken into account the effect on recruiting, particularly in view of the traditional links between individual villages, towns and families and certain regiments?

Mr. Healey: All this has been taken into account, and I am glad to confirm that battalions will retain their existing names.

Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a former soldier in the Queen's Royal Regiment, I regard the naming of one division as the Queen's

Division as a very good idea? Much more seriously, this reorganisation strikes me as extremely sensible and the only way of bringing about the kinds of savings both in overheads and in numbers of infantry to make possible the reductions which we obviously need, not only economically but from the point of view of maintaining a sensible military establishment.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will this reorganisation of the infantry into divisions also include the supporting arms which will normally be associated with particular divisions?

Mr. Healey: I want to make it clear that these divisions are divisions of infantry grouping, in the same way as an infantry brigade is a grouping of battalions. It is quite different from a fighting formation, which has supporting arms going far beyond the infantry.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that, a year ago, after the reappraisal of the whole defence policy, he told the House that all the major decisions had been taken? His answer today that he anticipates substantial cuts in the strength of all three Armed Services reflects the total failure of the economic policy of the present Government and appeasement of their own Left wing.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in Scotland, retention of regimental identities is important, otherwise recruiting could be badly damaged, when, hitherto, recruiting in Scotland has been good?

Mr. Healey: I recognise that very well, and would point out that regimental and battalion identities are not affected by this regrouping.

Captain W. Elliot: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, have the Government made a decision to reduce the ceilings for the Army and the Air Force? If so, can he give the new figures? If he cannot, can he say when he will be able to do so?

Mr. Healey: I dealt with this matter at some length in this year's defence debate, and foreshadowed it in last year's debate. I made it clear that, when I am


in a position to announce changes in the long-term structure and size of the three Services, I shall do so, and I recognise that the sooner that that can be done, the better.

Sir C. Mort-Radclyffe: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, up till now, with the brigade grouping, this has not seriously altered the characters of the different regiments? Now, with the new proposals to go on to a divisional basis, could he give a more convincing answer than hitherto as to how it is proposed to retain the very important regimental traditions within the new divisional grouping? Could the House have a White Paper to explain in detail how it will be worked out?

Mr. Healey: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot do better than talk in the same terms as he did, namely, that the identity and tradition of individual battalions and regiments will be preserved in exactly the same way under the new grouping, as under the grouping of the large regiment or brigade.
As for a White Paper, the hon. Gentlemen will find that the details to be published in HANSARD tomorrow will answer any questions which can be answered at this time.

Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House welcome the fact that, in honouring the Government's pledge to contain our defence expenditure, he has not shrunk from grasping this nettle, and that, if it involves us eventually in the cost of a few new cap badges, we will not bother too much about that?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Castle——

Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the rising of the House, are we not to have a statement on the third London Airport, about which there have been extensive reports in the Press today?

Mr. Speaker: No request has come to me from a Minister to make such a statement.

Mr. Mac Arthur: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of other questions arising from the state-

ment by the Minister of Defence, largely because of the uncertainty that some of his words have raised in our minds. Is it possible to allow one or two further supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker: This is always the difficulty of Mr. Speaker, but, at the same time, I must protect the business of the House——

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order. I allowed the questions to run as long as I thought reasonable. The House must leave it to my discretion. Mr. Biggs-Davison. Point of order.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), may we take it from what you have said, Mr. Speaker, that there will be no attempt on the part of the Government to announce a decision on Stansted Airport, which is of grave concern to my constituents and is threatening havoc in Essex, just as the House is rising? That would be most improper.

Mr. Speaker: The last thing which the hon. Gentleman would wish to do would be to get the Chair involved in the differences of opinion between both sides of the House.

Following are the details:

REORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY

Introduction

1. The White Paper on the Defence Estimates 1967 (Cmnd. 3203) stated that a wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army was being carried out, and that it was hoped to announce further plans for the long-term size and shape of the Services later this year. Decisions have already been reached on the future organisation of the Infantry. As these are of very close concern to the Army the earliest opportunity is being taken to announce them.

Present Organisation

2. The Infantry is at present organised into Brigades or Large Regiments. The Brigade of Guards contains eight battalions. The Infantry of the Line is made up of ten Brigades, three Large Regiments and the Parachute Regiment, each containing three or four battalions. A Large Regiment is a more closely integrated group than a Brigade of Infantry of the Line. This organisation is set out in the Annex.

Divisions of Infantry

3. It has become clear that, for the reasons given below, the present groupings of battalions within Brigades and Large Regiments are too small.

4. The Infantry structure of the future must allow for contraction, which could be considerable, or for expansion in the number and size of infantry units with the least possible difficulty. The present structure is a well established organisation but it is now necessary to develop it further into larger groupings to meet such changes.

5. Recruiting is largely on a territorial basis. There are inescapable fluctuations in the recruitment to individual Brigades and Large Regiments. The formation of larger groups for personnel management purposes will make it easier to eliminate any inequalities in strength and in specialists.

6. With larger groupings, it will be possible to concentrate recruit training into fewer Depots; this will make for training efficiency and for economy.

7. The Army Board have rejected the possibility of a Corps of Infantry devoid of subordinate groupings of Regiments. A single Corps would be unwieldy and impersonal to a degree inimical to effective personnel and general management. What is needed is a reduction in the number of groupings, not their abolition. They have accordingly decided that the Infantry should be reorganised into larger groupings to be known as "Divisions".

8. The Infantry of the Line, less the Parachute Regiment, will be organised into the new Divisions by grouping together existing Brigades and Large Regiments as follows:


Division
Existing Brigades and Large Regiments


The Queen's Division
The Queen's Regiment



The Fusilier Brigade



The Royal Anglian Regiment


The King's Division
The Lancastrian Brigade



The Yorkshire Brigade



The North Irish Brigade


The Prince of Wales's Division
The Wessex Brigade



The Mercian Brigade



The Welsh Brigade


The Scottish Division
The Lowland Brigade



The Highland Brigade


The Light Division
The Light Infantry Brigade



The Royal Green Jackets

9. The Scottish and Light Division are smaller than the others but each has distinguishing characteristics justifying a separate identity. In general the new groupings reflect geographical contiguity of home recruiting areas. In each Division a Headquarters will be formed, superseding existing Head quarters of Brigades and large Regiments. Officers will be gazetted, and soldiers enlisted, into the Division. Whenever possible, officers and soldiers will be posted to the Regiment of their choice. Basic training will be carried out in Divisional Depots. Regiments will preserve their identities, territorial affiliations and titles. To facilitate postings between battalions,

there will in due course be some rationalisation of dress and eventually a Divisional cap badge will be introduced.

10. The Brigade of Guards, which is already roughly of the size proposed for a Division, will continue as a separate organisation. In conformity with the new nomenclature its title will be changed to The Guards Division.

11. The Parachute Regiment, because of its special characteristics, will not be included in any Division of Infantry and will remain in its present form.

12. The new Divisional organisation, which will be introduced by planned stages, will be complete by the middle of 1969.

The Future

13. The new system of Divisions of Infantry will meet the needs of the future while preserving the best features of the regimental system inherited from the past. It will be flexible enough to meet all the demands that may be made upon it and will thus provide a stable enduring structure for the Infantry.

PRESENT ORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY

The Brigade of Guards

1st and 2nd Battalions, Grenadier Guards.
1st and 2nd Battalions, Coldstream Guards.
1st and 2nd Battalions, Scots Guards.
1st Battalion, Irish Guards.
1st Battalion, Welsh Guards.

Th Lowland Brigade

The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment).
The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment).
The King's Own Scottish Borderers.
The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles).

The Queen's Regiment

1st Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Queen's Surreys).
2nd Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Queen's Own Buffs).
3rd Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Royal Sussex).
4th Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Middlesex).

The Lancastrian Brigade

The King's Own Royal Border Regiment.
The King's Regiment (Manchester and Liverpool).
The Lancashire Regiment (Prince of Wales's Volunteers).
The Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire).

The Fusilier Brigade

The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers.
The Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers.
The Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment).
The Lancashire Fusiliers.

The Royal Anglian Regiment

1st (Norfolk and Suffolk) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.
2nd (Duchess of Gloucester's Own Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment
3rd (16th /44th Foot) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.
4th (Leicestershire) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

The Wessex Brigade

The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment.
The Gloucestershire Regiment.
The Royal Hampshire Regiment.
The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire).

The Light Infantry Brigade

The Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry.
The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry.
The King's Shropshire Light Infantry.
The Durham Light Infantry.

The Yorkshire Brigade

The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire.
The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment).
The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding).
The York and Lancaster Regiment.

The Mercian Brigade

The Cheshire Regiment.
The Worcestershire Regiment.
The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's).
The Sherwood Foresters (Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment).

The Welsh Brigade

The Royal Welsh Fusiliers.
The South Wales Borderers.
The Welsh Regiment.

The North Irish Brigade

The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.
The Royal Ulster Rifles.
The Royal Irish Fusiliers (Princess Victoria's).

The Highland Brigade

The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).
Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons).
The Gordon Highlanders.
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's).

The Parachute Regiment

1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions, The Parachute Regiment.

The Royal Green Jackets

1st Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd).
2nd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (The King's Royal Rifle Corps).
3rd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (The Rifle Brigade).

BILL PRESENTED

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING

Bill to resolve doubts as to the application of the Road Transport Lighting Act 1957 to reflecting material; to confer power on the Minister of Transport to require or authorise lights of prescribed colours to be shown to the rear of vehicles; and to restrict the carrying by vehicles of certain illuminated signalling devices, presented by Mrs. Barbara Castle; supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, and Mr. Stephen Swingler; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn till Wednesday, 31st May.— [Mr. Harper.]

4.18 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn, I think that the House is entitled to a statement from the Leader of the House about his intentions to allow us an opportunity to debate certain matters arising from articles in The Times and books concerning Suez. Fundamentally, there are three questions which are debatable. I should like to know from the Government whether we are to have a debate on all or any of these questions.
There is the question about the propriety of ex-Ministers of the Crown using knowledge which they acquired while in office to throw fresh light on decisions taken during their terms of office. It would be improper to debate the propriety or otherwise of this now, but there are two points which legitimately can be made.
First, if there is to be a ruling that Ministers should be debarred from doing this, it must apply to all Ministers, and we must not allow a custom to grow up by which very senior Ministers who want to defend or explain their own conduct are allowed a latitude which is not allowed to more junior Ministers. Second, for my own part, I take the view that when these matters have passed out of the immediate relevance of politics, it is all to the good in a democracy that, within reasonable limits, Ministers should be allowed to explain their points of view.
No doubt they sincerely held the points of view which they then upheld and, therefore, I cannot see that any damage is done by asking them at a future date to come forward and refute or argue with allegations made by Ministers who took different points of view. I cannot think that democracy will be helped by imposing for ever a cloak of secrecy over the ways in which very important decisions were entered upon.
Then there is the whole question of the Suez expedition. At one time, the Leader of the House was greatly concerned to have a full inquiry into how

this lamentable expedition ever took place. It may be said if the House were now to begin to disinter this very unfortunate incident in British history it might do us harm in the eyes of the world, but greater harm will be done to us if we attempt to bury it for ever.
It is said in some quarters that President Nasser is always stirring up trouble in the Middle East, but it appears that other people nearer home were determined to have a show-down in the Middle East. It has been said by the French and by various historians of repute. It is useless for us to pretend——

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is straying from his own guide lines. He must not seek to debate the merits of what he wants the House to debate.

Mr. Grimond: I take your point, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not pursue the matter any further, except to say that I am entitled to refute the objections to having a debate on this by saying that I do not believe the objections made from a wider area of policy would be justified.
Rightly or wrongly—and, again, it is not my intention to debate the rights and wrongs of the matter—we imposed a very heavy penalty on Mr. Profumo for having misled the House. I agree that there are great differences between what he did and what it may be alleged other Ministers have done before him, but it is a matter for consideration by this House about how far we have a right to accept from all Members, whether Ministers or not, a degree of complete frankness with the House, and whether, if they fall from that degree of frankness, it is excusable because they can plead, and fairly so, that concealment was made in the public interest.
I would regret it if we were to embark on a vendetta against Ministers who were engaged in the Suez venture, but there is an important point of principle here, and an extra element is added to that point of principle by the behaviour of this House, for which we all take responsibility, in regard to Mr. Profumo.
Further, it seems that Mr. Nutting himself in some ways has been used as a scapegoat. He is not getting the credit, which to my mind he should be, for having been one of the few people to "come clean" over the whole incident.


It has been suggested that he behaved improperly in not making a statement to the House when he resigned. We should know why he did not do that, whether there was anything improper in this conduct, and what advice he was offered.
Without going into the merits of the case, I think that it has certain important implications for the way we conduct our affairs. Before we rise for the Whit-sun Recess I think that we should hear from the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to have a debate on this matter, and if so, when, and what will be discussable. It has been rumoured that it is intended to hold a debate after the publication of Mr. Nutting's book, but I would be grateful, if it is his intention to enable us to have a debate, if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether in that debate all these matters will be discussable, whether the debate will be limited in content, and whether his undertaking to provide time for a debate is a firm one, or whether he is waiting for the general opinion of the House.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I do not think that we should agree to this Motion without having some opportunity to express our view about the situation which arose recently in Greece, because, unhappily, in this House there has been no opportunity to do more than ask one or two brief Questions and to obtain some extremely brief replies. As we are facing a situation in which a member of N.A.T.O. has had its parliamentary Government overthrown by means of a military coup, possibly using equipment provided for N.A.T.O. by the United States, or conceivably even by us, it will seem fantastic if no expression of opinion is clearly given from this country.
Our anxieties are made all the greater because of news of the large number of people who have been detained. According to the latest information which I have, more than 6,000 people are being detained and interned on the Island of Yioura, and the memories which some hon. Members have of the islands used for detention off the coast of Greece give cause for great anxiety. It is therefore no light matter to us in this country that this sudden and brutal assertion of military power should have occurred.
I am concerned that there has been no statement from our Government, other than comments in another place. I am all the more concerned because certain other Governments have taken a different view. The Danish and Norwegian Governments have expressed their anxiety about the situation and have called for the restoration of constitutional Government in Greece.
At its meeting only a fortnight ago the Council of Europe, which was widely attended by representatives from Western European countries, unhesitatingly passed a resolution calling attention to the serious situation in Greece and calling also for an early restoration of constitutional Government. It called upon the Bureau of the Council of Europe to inquire about the safety of the delegates from Greece who normally attend Council meetings and who, quite suddenly, were prevented from attending only a day or two before the Assembly was due to meet.
I notice that at a recent N.A.T.O. meeting attempts were made to raise this matter, and that in the European Parliament of the Common Market countries, to which we hope shortly to become attached, the matter was vigorously debated and attention was called to the seriousness of the situation.
There are, of course, many individual cases to which reference has been made, and there have been Written Answers in this House in connection with Mrs. Betty Ambatielos.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has the sympathy of Mr. Speaker in the issues which he is seeking to raise, but he cannot go into the detailed merits of the matter.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I was not wishing to go into too much detail, but merely to emphasise the gravity of the situation which, I submit, warrants some consideration before we agree to the Motion before us.
I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend, or one of his colleagues, to make a statement today expressing the Government's view and saying what representations have been made on this matter to the authorities now in charge in Greece. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us an assurance


that there is no suggestion of recognising the new authority there until steps have been taken to restore constitutional Government.
All kinds of criticisms may be made of the situation in the past, but surely it is clear that we require from our Government a statement associating this country with the protests made by other countries and by assemblies of Parliamentarians elsewhere. I hope that my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues will be able to do this in this House today.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether, before we rise, we are to have a statement about Stansted Airport. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave concern throughout the London area, and indeed throughout the country, about where this new airport may be sited and whether Stansted will be chosen? There is grave concern not only in Essex and around Stansted itself, but in other constituencies in the London area, including my own, which suffer from aircraft noise along the glide path into Heathrow.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned to read in today's Evening Standard what appears to be a major leak—yet another major one from this Administration—which says that the Government are going to announce the establishment of this airport at Stansted, but presumably as they are not doing so today they will announce it tomorrow morning. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not behave in such a dishonourable way as to tuck this statement in tomorrow morning, when he knows that most hon. Members will have returned to their constituencies.
I hope that the Leader of the House can say something about this today. The reason why such widespread concern exists on the question of siting the airport at Stansted is that the suggestion has been put forward of an alternative site in the estuary, clear of London and London's built-up area. It is the view of most Londoners, both in the centre and on the outskirts, that before we rise for the Recess the Government should announce to the House, at a time when Members

will be present in large numbers, the fact that this airport should not be at Stansted but—taking a longer view—in the estuary.
By building this new airport in the estuary we shall remove the heavy buildup of aircraft noise which is bound to take place over the next few years as the result of siting the new airport at Stansted.
I am sure that the Leader of the House is well aware of the aircraft noise which has to be borne by Londoners living under the glide path. Not only in my constituency of Richmond but in other constituencies around London this noise is becoming intolerable. Life will be made hell for those living under the glide path, and where so many hundreds of thousands of people are involved the Leader of the House should arrange for a statement to be made on this important matter and not tuck it away tomorrow morning—I see the Leader of the House nodding; I have a feeling that that is what he intends to do. He should not tuck it away on a day when there will be few Members here. Therefore, the announcement should be made either after we return from the Recess or this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Mr. Francis Noel-Baker.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I venture to revert——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Philip Noel-Baker.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Was that misunderstanding due to the right hon. Gentleman's youthful appearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Realising that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) was not here, I ventured to accept your invitation to address the House.
I want to revert to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I venture briefly to support his contention that we should have a pledge from the Lord President of the Council that we shall shortly have a debate on the revelations


made by Mr. Nutting, and the reports in The Times—to both of whom the House should be very grateful. I do not seek to argue the merits of the question, but I am sure that we should debate all three aspects of the events of 1956 and what followed—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
I consider this question to be of the highest importance to all parties in the House. I remember that after 1956 it seemed not only to me but to many other hon. Members that the work of the House was being poisoned by the fact that we could not rely on what we were being told from the Government Front Bench. It strikes at the very root of democracy if the House of Commons cannot rely on securing straightforward answers to questions and arguments which may be put.
It is vitally important for a second reason. The real point at issue in 1956 was the sanctity of the Charter of the United Nations. No right hon. Gentleman on either Front Bench would venture to contest the view that the survival of mankind depends, in the long run, on the integrity of the Charter. The events at Suez, ten years ago, were followed by many similar events in other parts of the world which have undermined the integrity of the new law which the nations have created. For those reasons, I hope that the Lord President will do what the right hon. Gentleman has asked.

4.36 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I do not think that the House should rise for the Whitsun Recess without being given an authoritative statement from the Lord President, or the appropriate Minister, on the subject of Stansted Airport. I do not raise this matter because I have a personal constituency interest, but I suffer the same as anybody else who lives in London from the noise of aircraft flying overhead—although I am so conditioned to it now that at night I wake up if aircraft stop flying over.
The House will be treated with contempt if this inspired leak in the Evening Standard tonight is confirmed tomorrow, when it is too late for many Members of the House to ask pertinent questions of the Minister. If the announcement is to be made tomorrow the question will have died and become old news by the time

we return. Hon. Members with constituency interests have not only a right but a duty to raise the matter, and to pursue it—because it is a very controversial question.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, in a very friendly manner—at the moment— that unless we have some assurance of a debate which is unlimited, I am prepared to break the record for a long speech, held by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). The right hon. Gentleman should realise that this is the sort of issue he is facing. There are many matters that we can raise in this connection, and he had better arrange for a statement to be made or give the promise of a statement before the rising of the House tonight.
Another point that I want to raise concerns the report in The Times that a Mr. Wilson, a native of Derby, is apparently to be deported from Guyana. I thought that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) intended to raise this point. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of Mr. Wilson's deportation. I understand that it was made under a law just passed in that country, which gives Guyana the right to deport British subjects.
What is far more important is the fact that this gentleman settled in that country and married an Amerindian woman—one of the natives of that country—and by "native" I mean one of the original inhabitants who were overrun by Indian and Negro tribes. His wife was one of the original, uneducated elements from the centre of the country. Mr. Wilson married this lady because he wanted to spend his life with this community and help it raise its standards, and also to find out something about it.
Although this gentleman is to be deported, I understand that his wife is not to be allowed to come with him. I would have thought that the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who raised the question of the United Nations, would agree that this case involves the question of human rights and the freedom of the individual, and was a matter in respect of which the House should hear from the Commonwealth Secretary as to what is being done to protect this gentleman and his wife, because action will presumably need to be taken quickly.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Grossman): I am sorry, but I did not catch the name of the gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman was referring.

Sir D. Glover: He is a Mr. Wilson, of Guyana. I did not think that I would need to repeat his name. I am sure that there will not be any confusion about which Mr. Wilson I am referring to. I do not raise this subject in a hostile way, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to arrange for a report to be given to the House before we rise, because by the time we return the question will have passed out of our control.
I do not know about my Front Bench——

Mr. Anthony Barber: I am not sure that I know about my back bench.

Sir D. Glover: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will have a view on this matter. I do not know about my Front Bench, since it has been generous today with the Foreign Secretary over the question of a statement about Southern Arabia. Knowing how rapidly events move, I should have thought that we needed a much clearer statement of policy before we rose.
I have always appreciated the difficulties of those holding of high offices of state, and there are two other aspects of the problem which the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. Although we may be critics in the House, we also have a responsibility to be informed in the country. The House is to rise until 31st May. The public have read about the proposed changes, together with hints of alterations of policy and perhaps a greater emphasis on delay—all implications in the Foreign Secretary's statement—but not a single hon. Member could help the public in the Recess in informing public opinion about Government policy in the South Arabian Federation——

Mr. David Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best news possible about Aden would be that the South Arabian Federation will be finished completely?

Sir D. Glover: It is most helpful of the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I am sure

that that is what he wishes. But, judging from what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, I am sure that it is not what he will do. I should therefore mislead the public if I used the hon. Gentleman's helpful advice and said that this was the Government's intention. I do not think that it is. Therefore, the House and hon. Members need a great deal more information before we rise.
We also need more information about our procedure. The right hon. Gentleman has tried many innovations, but the mood of the House seems to be much less enthusiastic for some than when they were instituted. Will they run on to the end of the next Session—if we know that we can make our plans on that basis—or will the right hon. Gentleman, after three weeks' consideration, bring in alterations? In other words, are Monday morning sittings to continue to the end of the summer, or will they be done away with, since the right hon. Gentleman admitted in our last debate that they cause trouble not only to hon. Members but also, perhaps more, to the staff of the House?
It is no use me and 629 other hon. Members going around our constituencies deciding that we should like to raise a subject on the Adjournment on Monday mornings if there are to be no sittings then. It would be helpful to know. On many of these things, the right hon. Gentleman could give the House more information. After a very unsatisfactory debate on our procedure, we should have a very important one at an early date to consider proposals—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: While he is on this very important question of the reform of our procedure, would the hon. Gentleman care to say anything about shorter speeches?

Sir D. Glover: I should be only too happy to make a speech on that subject, because that would enable me——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be out of order.

Sir D. Glover: It might be thought to be in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have a debate on shorter speeches before the House rises, so that when we return we would know that we should not make longer speeches than the length we discussed before we rose. When the Liberal


Chief Whip so helpfully raised this matter, I thought that if the same principle had applied during the recent debate on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, two-thirds of the information which the Prime Minister gave would have been barred and restricted——

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not how long speeches are which counts but how long they seem to be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches, and a large number of hon. Members still want to speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Motion.

Sir D. Glover: I will do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members opposite probably were not present when I told the Leader of the House that the House was entitled to a very important statement. I am only using the proper procedure to try to get the right hon. Gentleman to do that. I hold him what powers a back bencher has and they are very limited today. The right hon. Gentleman is not exactly trying to extend them. I will not carry this any further, because I am basically kind-hearted, and have made something of a demonstration.
I believe that, despite some of his unpopularity as Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman genuinely desires to serve it and he has an absolute duty. If there is an announcement about Stansted, it should be made to hon. Members, not at a late hour tomorrow when the House is empty, but today, when many hon. Members can ask proper questions about it.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I wish to return to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), because I thought that he misunderstood it. It is not fair to relate anything said by Ministers at the time of Suez to a statement made by Mr. Profumo. It has nothing to do with it. If this is to be brought into the debate, I hope that the Speaker will look at Mr. Profumo's statement again.
The explanation is that I had always understood that personal statements were personal statements, but there were grave doubts about that one. It was edited by

the Prime Minister of the time, and delivered to Mr. Speaker by the Patronage Secretary of the time, which, in effect, was out of order, and ought to be regularised. There is a personal responsibility on a Minister and a Speaker.
I thought that the late Speaker, as I told him, was mistaken in the course which he followed. Consequently, if there is any debate about statements made in good faith from that Box, it ought not to be confused with the Profumo statement, which——

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbock rose——

Mr. Pannell: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I am on something which I know something about; I want to be careful about this, because I raised a point of order at the time.
When hon. Members make a personal statement, they ask Mr. Speaker about it and submit the statement to him, and he knows what is in it. The Member puts his hand on the Box and cannot depart from it. There is no doubt that there were improper matters in that statement, which reflected on other hon. Members and which were held to be improper afterwards. There was a serious dereliction of duty by the Speaker of the time in admitting the statement. In any case, the statement——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman, as he has just done, to accuse a previous occupant of the Chair of a serious dereliction of duty? I had always understood that criticisms of present or former occupants of the Chair could be put forward only by a substantive Motion.

Mr. Pannell: I have carefully thought about this; and, in any case, there was no——

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a difficult matter. I do not think that a former occupant of the Chair is protected in the way that a present occupant of the Chair is. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, is responsible for any statements he makes to the House and would naturally, I expect, take care about what he says.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to you for that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and, of


course, I accept it. However, has it not been the practice of this House to treat with great care and respect the reputations of former occupants of the Chair who are no longer here to answer for themselves? Is it not contrary, at any rate to the general sense of the House, for, above all, a right hon. Gentleman to make a criticism of a former Speaker who now, alas, is in no position to defend his own honour and reputation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair can deal only with matters of strict order and with matters as they arise. I endeavoured to convey my feeling to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that he should take care; but I must say emphatically that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West is responsible for any statements which he makes.

Mr. Pannell: I am as fastidious in my treatment of the Chair as any hon. Member. I know the rule. It is that the antecedents of the present Speaker must never be referred to, however lurid they may be. If the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has any feelings on this subject, he will know that if one considers the history of Speakers of the House, it is at the time of their death that history begins.
I am merely trying to make the point that what was done at that time should, in my view, not have been done. The idea of having a Select Committee to go into those matters was resisted by Conservative hon. Members at the time. They therefore cannot complain now if I use this opportunity to raise the matter. Indeed, I was making the point on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman's side that one must draw a sharp line between a statement deliberately made to the House, which is under protection, and something which an hon. Member may say in good faith when he comes to the Dispatch Box, but which is afterwards held to be untrue.
I want to make it perfectly clear—and in doing so I am not calling for an early debate on Suez—that it was a great national humiliation and that when the Leader of the House considers this matter he would be well advised to stick to his original opinion, which was that Mr. Nutting's book should be published in full before he decides whether to have a

debate. After 10 years, a Suez debate is not something that can go off half-cock. We want all the information. It is a serious matter indeed. Only when people like the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) can read it all, and take it in its context, will they be able to come to the Dispatch Box prepared to meet it. There may be a time to debate Suez——

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Such as now.

Mr. Pannell: I believe that my hon. Friend wrote a review of another book.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I saw the uncorrected proof copy.

Mr. Pannell: But I have not. My hon. Friend is a great authority on this subject, but he must allow me to read the darned thing for myself.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: My right hon. Friend can do so at any time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) must not make interventions from a sedentary position. If he wishes to catch my eye he should attempt to do so in the usual way, when notice may be taken of him.

Mr. Pannell: I would take as true anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not while he is sitting down.

Mr. Pannell: Like Stanley Baldwin, one must occasionally reflect on the many-sidedness of truth. I am making the point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should stick to his previous opinion, which was that we should have all the information we can possibly get before we debate the quesion of Suez.
I strongly reinforce the view that, in my opinion, there has been a great deal of selectivity in Establishment channels about who they allow to reproduce certain stuff. Undoubtedly, Sir Winston Churchill was allowed a most favoured position in the keeping of all sorts of things. So was Sir Anthony Eden, but I will not go into that now. The present Government might very well consider introducing rules that would protect them and others before them so that we may have something like impartiality on this issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is going much too far into the merits of the case on a Motion about the Adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess.

Mr. Pannell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one cannot be expected to look over one's shoulder to know in which way Mr. Speaker ruled when the right hon. Gentleman was on his feet. I am endeavouring to stick closely to matters that have been raised during the debate. I have not wandered beyond Mr. Speaker's Ruling, though I bow to your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I merely wish to fortify this point, because there has been a great deal of partiality. I can recall the fine which was inflicted on the son of George Lansbury for the harmless reporting of an innocuous Cabinet matter. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken many opportunities with the Establishment when they have been out of office— [Interruption.]—but I will leave the matter there for now.
I mention these points because we are concerned about history. I do not believe that they are matters which should prevent the rising of the House for the Whitsun Recess. I want to make that perfectly clear. They are matters which can be safely left with the Leader of the House. I hope that I am in order in saying that the sort of propaganda that is put out about the Leader of the House—that he is unpopular in the House, that he lacks support from my hon. Friends, or that the friendship we feel towards him is palpably untrue—does no good at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pannell: The matter has been raised in the other direction. I hope that I am in order in considering the affirmative side of the argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to restrict the right hon. Gentleman, but he must confine his remarks to the Motion. If he will relate them to the Motion I will be happy to hear them.

Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman as good as said that we should not rise for Whitsun while the present Leader of the House holds that office.

I want to keep him. I do not want to throw him away. Normally speaking, every other Leader of the House has never wanted to do anything at all. This man is simply bursting over to do things—and, of course, occasionally some of his ideas will not come off.
In an old building like this, a place which is encrusted with 1,000 years of history, new hon. Members want to alter things the first Session they are here. After that, the place seems to become increasingly rational. It becomes more rational as they get older. There is a great surge of opinion behind the present Leader of the House in attempting to alter our procedures. Those alterations are bound not to suit everybody, such as the Member who wants a career and to be in this place. I am merely saying that my right hon. Friend should not lose any sleep during the Whitsun Recess and that he can rest assured that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West has confidence in him.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want, particularly on the eve of the Whitsun Recess, to quarrel with the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I hope, however, that he will reflect during the Recess on what he said about our late Speaker. You ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if I may say so, you ruled, as always, absolutely rightly—that although in order, that kind of statement was made on the right hon. Gentleman's own responsibility. He was, therefore, entitled, if he took the responsibility, to say what he said.
On the other hand, to take the responsibility of charging our former Speaker, who was a friend of many of us, who is no longer here to speak for himself, but whose family is, happily, still about the place, and to accuse him of a serious dereliction of duty, is a point made in my presence which I must severely rebut. Without wishing to enter into the controversies of those days, I do not believe that our then Speaker, or any Speaker, has been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty. I hope that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West will use the Recess to reflect on what he said. He is a fair-minded man, and I know that if he comes to the conclusion that the words he used were


not fair he will withdraw them. I hope that he will.
As for a debate on Suez, I hope that if we have one it will be a wide one concerned not only with the Government of the day but with the Opposition of the day. I hope that it will enable us to inquire into why it was that the then Leader of the Opposition, having made a highly responsible speech on 2nd August—in which he said that Nasser should not be allowed to get away with it—then changed his front. Inquiries might be interesting into the pressures that might have been applied to him.
Equally, the conduct——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to relate his remarks to the Motion on the Order Paper. I would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman, too, would do that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very conscious of that need, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I understand the reasoning it is that if we adjourn now we forfeit a fortnight or so of the time in which we could have a debate on Suez, and some hon. Members want a debate on Suez. I was only concerned, in relation to that enthusiastic desire, that the debate should be sufficiently wide in scope to enable all the relevant facts affecting all the parties concerned to be fully adumbrated.
As quite serious things have been said about some of my right hon. Friends, I think that it is at least within the confines of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should be allowed to point out that there are others whose conduct at that time could be called in question. There is the attitude of the then Opposition, while our troops were actually engaged in operations, seeking, contrary to all tradition, to raise the most appalling hoohah in this House. All I say, and I will pass from this——

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South) rose——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!"]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames

(Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has indicated that he will give way in a moment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes. I always do give way to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), but I prefer to do so at the end of what I am saying at the moment.
My only point is that if there is to be such a debate it should be completely comprehensive and cover all the issues. In deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now leave that subject, with the one escape clause—unless I am incited by the right hon. Gentleman to whom I now give way.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He will no doubt recall that from 2nd August onwards the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, repeatedly warned the Government that they must not use force in the Suez dispute without the approval and sanction of the United Nations; and that when the then Government violated the Charter of the United Nations we had to stand by the warnings we had given; and that the country and the world supported us and not them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In all fairness, I should allow the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames to reply—but a short reply.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My short reply is that if this be so the right hon. Gentleman, who is among those who support the request for a debate on this subject, can make a speech in that debate and explain what the then Leader of the Opposition meant when, on 2nd August, he said that Nasser must not be allowed to get away with it. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I, too, have got away with it as far as I can, and I retreat at least to the outer perimeter of the rules of order.
It is obvious that none of us should go away on what is, in many ways, the most agreeable of all the Recesses without some serious factors being weighed, and I must put it to the Leader of the House that if we do not go away for a Recess of this very considerable length there is one wrong on which we could use the time in putting right.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that but for the action of the Government local government electors in the


boroughs of London would today be voting in local government elections. Even the right hon. Gentleman in his most sanguine mood can not now have the slighest doubt about what the result of such elections would have been. When the Government put through the legislation which denied to these boroughs of London, alone in the country, the right that they had under previous law today to change councillors whose mandate had expired, we were told, "Well, they probably will not want to change them anyhow."
The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that now in the face of the G.L.C. elections, and in the face of the borough elections throughout the country, where Labour councillors have been ejected with almost monotonous rapidity and regularity. What we know now, though we did not know it then—though some of suspected—is that what the Government were doing was to foist on the London Boroughs, by selective and discriminatory action as compared with the rest of the country, local councils they do not want.
The right hon. Gentleman could repeal that legislation. He could not allow an election today, but if we came back next week and he repealed that legislation he could have elections in June, which is soon enough. He is now in a position, if he chooses, to extricate the Government from the very undemocratic position of imposing on the electors local government that they have shown they do not want. And with all respect to hon Members opposite, who show great unhappiness about events in Greece, about which we can do little, we can do a lot to ensure the return of democracy in London.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman why we are not having legislation to put right that wrong——

Mr. Lubbock: How many people in Enfield are in detention without trial?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), or perhaps he would like to address his question to the Home Secretary, who is responsible for that state of affairs in London. I understand, naturally, how a Liberal Chief Whip can never be affected by questions of prac-

ticability, but if the hon. Gentleman were in touch with reality he would grasp the simple proposition that there is, unhappily, very little we can do about the state of affairs in Greece, but we could give London its elections by a decision of this House——

Mr. Grimond: I know the right hon. Gentleman's passionate interest in reality, but does he really think that the Leader of the House would do what he says?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: One of the fascinating things in my long experience of the Leader of the House is that one can never anticipate what he will do, but one has the knowledge that one shares that happy ignorance with the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Crossman: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he is in a state of extreme hopefulness about my reply on the London Government Act.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I only say that the Leader of the House will know that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over many of us Tories who need no repentance, and although the right hon. Gentleman has done 20 years and many wrong things in this House, there is still hope that he will reform. He has a chance this afternoon.
One of my hon. Friends asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could use this Recess in connection with his far-reaching reforms of procedure—that streamlining of our procedure, proposals for which flow on to the Order Paper without even the clerks being consulted to find out whether they will be available to implement them. When we come back, are we still to go on with this ludicrous business of concluding the main business of the House on Mondays and Wednesdays at half-past nine, or is that state of things to be put right? Are we to go on with the farce of Monday morning and Wednesday morning sittings, or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to put that right, too.
Do the terms of the Motion for a long Whitsun Recess bear some relation to the fact that the Leader of the House knows that he is to exercise his newly acquired powers to guillotine the Finance Bill?


Does he feel able so confidently to send us away for this longer period because he knows that he now has the power, never taken since the war, to guillotine the annual Finance Bill? Can he tell us whether, when we come back, the Finance Bill will be guillotined?
We were told by the Minister of Health on Monday, when under some pressure, that he would have discussions with the chairman and managers of St. Teresa's Hospital at Wimbledon—I hope with a view to finding a solution of that unhappy state of affairs and retrieving the crude and clumsy error of the Hospital Board. Can we be told that when we come back the Minister of Health will be able to make a statement about this matter? People care about this hospital. In view of the previous attitude of the Minister, and the even worse attitude of the Chairman of the Regional Hospital Board, some of us are not happy about going away and so leaving time running against this hospital. The Minister gave us some hope on Monday. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, whatever the result of these discussions, that the Minister will be prepared to make a statement on our return?
Finally—and this concerns all of us in London—there is the question of Stansted. When are we to have a statement on Stansted? We know that there are leaks saying that it is ready. Ministers in charge of Aviation have a bad reputation for making statements on the verge of a Recess. If it is impossible for the statement to be made tomorrow, will there be time given for a debate on this matter after the Recess?

5.10 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I would not under-estimate some of the important national or local issues which have been raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but I rather regretted in his speech a note of indifference to some affairs which have occurred rather further away. I thought this quite unnecessary, because many things which have happened far away may in their consequences be of far more importance to the people of this country than some domestic matters. Knowing the general outlook of the right hon. Gentleman, I was rather surprised that he allowed him-

self that expression of indifference, particularly to the tragic events in Greece.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I gave that impression, it was certainly not my intention. I said that those events were unhappy but there was little we could do about them. I would not construe that as indifference, but if I gave that impression to the hon. Member, I assure him that I did not mean to do so.

Mr. Mendelson: In the opinion of all hon. Members, wherever they sit in the House, it is important to endeavour not to give an impression of that kind to our comrades-in-arms and friends in Greece. Therefore, I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said when he asked that the Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government, will tell us what representations the Government, have made in Athens concerning the very serious events which have taken place there recently.
This is all the more necessary because it has been reliably reported that there were two aspects of the recent military coup which concerns us directly as members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance. The first aspect, which has been very widely reported, is that the arms used to occupy all the central positions in Athens when the coup took place were arms supplied under the N.A.T.O. Treaty. That was not the original purpose for which those arms were supplied. Secondly, and equally important, it is said that the actual plan which was used and worked with such precision was a plan worked out under N.A.T.O. authority against foreign aggression.
It is reported that the King himself and many officers senior to those who organised the coup with such efficiency were caught in it because they thought that an international crisis had arisen and that under the Alliance arrangements they ought to fall in with what was being done. Only at a very late stage did some of those senior officers realise that this plan had been used to overturn the internal constitution of Greece. This is a matter which concerns the Government very directly as a member of the N.A.T.O. Alliance.
We hear a great deal, particularly in general debates, about the main purpose of the Alliance being to secure our own


security, the security of our allies and, above all, of democracy. That is always the argument put forward when decisions in the N.A.T.O. Alliance are discussed. In many newspapers I find a complete indifference to the overturn of democracy in Greece. Many people are only a little concerned about this matter when it is raised by some of my hon. Friends. The position there has been raised officially by the Danish Government and by other Governments.
To be fair to the Government, it has been reported that at the very beginning the American Ambassador and the British Ambassador intervened and had an early interview with the new civilian Prime Minister who has been put in office by the military. It was reported that the American Ambassador adopted a very soft attitude to the events while the attitude of Her Majesty's Ambassador was fairly rigid and was critical. I was glad to see this report and I should like it to be confirmed by my right hon. Friend, because since then there has been another report on the official Greek radio in Athens which gave a completely different outline of the interview.
That report said that the British Ambassador had seen the new Prime Minister and assured him that Britain fully understood what had taken place and more or less accepted it in those terms. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend could deny that account of the attitude adopted by our Ambassador. Does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) wish to intervene?

Sir John Langford-Holt: I do not expect that the Leader of the House would give an answer of that sort in reply to the debate on this Motion.

Mr. Mendelson: I have been here since the beginning of this debate and I have heard all the Rulings given from the Chair. It is not for an hon. Member who has just walked in from the outer regions to rule over us as an extra Deputy Speaker.
I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, could deny this very serious report, which I hope misrepresents the attitude adopted by our Ambassador.
I turn to the only other matter I wish to raise. It concerns what is happening in

a region even further away, but one which may have even more serious consequences on the future and fortunes of the people of this country. That is the ever-increasing escalation of the war in Vietnam. This subject has not been mentioned this afternoon. I introduce it by saying that some of the events which the Prime Minister and the Government in general have always regarded as most dangerous and most likely to lead to involvement of other Powers and, therefore, to the danger of a new world war, are now taking place daily in Vietnam. They are taking place as a result of a major decision by the Administration in Washington.
It is reliably reported from Washington that the decision is to escalate further the bombing and step it up in the next few weeks. This is directly linked with this Motion, because it is absolutely clear that while we are in Recess these matters might come to a head and we shall have no opportunity whatever of questioning Ministers and no opportunity of bringing the opinion of the House of Commons on these matters to bear on the action of the Government.
It has also been announced that during the Recess, I believe on 19th May, the Foreign Secretary will be arriving in Moscow on a diplomatic visit and that he will have discussions with the Soviet Government. This would be a useful opportunity for him to discuss these matters. If we were in Session we could immediately ask for a statement on his return from Moscow. We shall not be able to do so and, therefore, this is the last opportunity for any hon. Member to raise these matters with a Government spokesman. The decision which was recently taken by the United States Administration concerns the bombing of North Vietnam. The decision has been taken to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong. It is proposed to step up these bombing operations in the next few weeks whilst the House is in Recess. I have here a report published in the New York Times this morning. I want to quote only this one sentence from it:
Navy carrier jets bombed inside the City of Haiphong today in the second such attack of the Vietnam war.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on an important occasion, speaking from the Dispatch Box, said in reply to a


Question that the Government were wholly opposed to the extension of the bombing operations against main population centres in North Vietnam or anywhere in Vietnam.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting at the merits of the subject rather than the reasons for adjourning or not adjourning, which is the Motion on the Order Paper. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his remarks to the Motion.

Mr. Mendelson: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have so far not introduced any more subject matter than other hon. Members have introduced on many other subjects. I will hasten to put myself in order by saying that this is the second time this operation has taken place. It will be continued in the next few weeks. If these attacks multiply on the main population centres, a policy to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed the Government will be violated, and this is the last opportunity that I have to urge the Government to reaffirm the statement made by my right hon. Friend that the British Government are totally opposed to the bombing of main population centres in Vietnam.
There is a further escalation which it is expected will occur in the next few weeks. [Interruption.] I cannot understand the mutterings of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) when I am discussing a matter of such importance, because if a world war were to break out over Vietnam his constituents would be as much involved as mine.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I was merely trying to ascertain whether the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend intend to vote against the Motion. If they do, I shall support them.

Mr. Mendelson: I ought to have known that it would be a frivolous intervention. I return to the main point. The other major escalation which is foreshadowed in the next few weeks concerns the sending of a further 60,000 American troops to Vietnam. It has recently been reliably reported that the Soviet Ambassador has made a démarche in Washington in which he said, on behalf of the Soviet Government, that if this were to take place there

would be a very large increase in the amount of military equipment and other matters supplied by the Soviet Union to Vietnam.
Therefore we are facing over the next few weeks perhaps the gravest development of the war in Vietnam that we have yet had to face. It will be precisely at a time when the House is not in Session. I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House whether the Government are making any representations in Washington for the Americans to think again before they make this further large commitment to escalate the war in Vietnam. After all, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to be against the further escalation of the war. Whatever disagreement any of my hon. Friends or I myself might have had with the Prime Minister or with other members of the Government in our attitude towards the war in Vietnam, we have always been in complete agreement on one point—that we are opposed to the further escalation of the war. This has been confirmed time and again by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. What is more, I know that my right hon. Friend has in the past, in many ways and in co-operation with many other Governments, worked very hard to avoid further escalation.
In conclusion, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he can tell the House anything about the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his visit to Moscow, whether he intends to take up again with the Soviet Union, because of the growing dangers of this situation, the possibility of a new initiative. I would not expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to disclose any details of such an initiative, but perhaps he could indicate in general terms whether the Government are determined to start a new initiative with the co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference—the Soviet Union; because we must realise that, if indeed escalation proceeds and other powers, first indirectly and then on a larger scale——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that a certain amount of latitude has been allowed in the debate, but I really think that he has exhausted the limits of the latitude offered to other right hon. and hon. Members. He must now come to the point.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are all of us near the borderline at times. I go back to within the confines of the Motion. The point I was coming to is directly on the Motion. Would my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that if the further escalation does begin to take place and if there are dangerous developments over the next three weeks, he will advise the Prime Minister to have the House of Commons recalled?
This is the point of the debate. We have the right to demand an assurance before we adjourn that if certain eventualities that we are afraid of do occur the House should be recalled. It is very important to have the reply by the Minister concerned on record before we agree to pass the Motion. On this occasion, tragically, the dangers are even greater than they were when the House last went into Recess, because it is clear that if there is a further intervention with more troops by the United States there is a very great danger of two other major Powers becoming more involved, first indirectly and then more directly. Then we may be facing a development in which the play of alliances in which we are involved would directly concern the people of this country. On these grounds, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us in some detail what the Government are doing.

Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Gentleman does not get a satisfactory reply from the Leader of the House, would he like any help in the Division Lobbies?

Mr. Mendelson: I am addressing myself to the Leader of the House on a very serious matter. I am concerned to know what the Government are doing about it. I am not concerned about trifling interventions.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall try to be careful not to offend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, either as to latitude, to which you have just referred, or as to longitude.
I do not agree entirely with the views of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) on Vietnam, but I agree with him that we should have the assurances for which he has asked from the Leader of the House. If it is required, I shall

be happy, as I believe some of my hon. Friends will be, to be with the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby.
I personally should also welcome any discussion which may be held upon the subject of Suez, although the line which I took on that matter was diametrically opposed to that taken by right hon. and hon. Members who have so far mentioned the topic of Mr. Nutting's book in the House this afternoon. I think that this subject would make a very interesting debate. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was absolutely right to say that many interesting matters would be brought out, which would reflect, not so much on the Conservative Government of the time, but upon Opposition Members at that date. I should be very glad to give the hon. Member, for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) something to put into his next book on the subject. I remember that I was extremely flattered, as a young Member, that I should have been mentioned in his book, but I do not think that the weight of guilt has been very heavy on my conscience.
However, the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was right in suggesting that perhaps we should wait for the appearance of Mr. Nutting's book in full, because there are many gaps and I, for one, should be glad to know exactly why and when Mr. Nutting changed his views about President Nasser.
The hon. Member for Penistone and other hon. Members who have spoken mentioned the people who are detained in Greece. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) mentioned Mr. Wilson, of Guyana. The House is always deeply concerned for the protection of the rights, liberties and property of Her Majesty's subjects wherever they may be.
Last Thursday, I gave notice to the Leader of the House that I might be disposed to oppose this Motion until we heard more from the Government about the plight of British subjects and Commonwealth citizens, for whose protection Her Majesty's Government are responsible, who are detained in Zambia and elsewhere in Africa. There are seven of them, I believe, though the score may have gone up since we last had news. I shall not discuss the merits of


their cases. I do not know why they have been detained. In passing, I must say that it was regrettable that Her Majesty's High Commission in Lusaka failed to extend to a British subject who happened to be a Rhodesian the same assistance as was extended to other British subjects, but the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs explained today that that matter has been put right, and I am grateful.
We understand that these unfortunate people are to be put before a tribunal. I wish to say nothing in this House disrespectful to the judiciary of Zambia. On the other hand, when we learn today that an able and honourable British journalist, Mr. John Monks, of the Daily Express, has been deported from Zambia and will, therefore, no longer be able to report on these matters, one wonders a little whether justice will be seen to be done. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, we have little power to affect events in Greece. But I am speaking of British subjects for whose rights and liberties Her Majesty's Government bear a direct responsibility.
I turn now to a subject about which other hon. Members have spoken, a subject of direct concern to my constituents, namely, the possibility that there will be a third London airport at Stansted. If this comes about, it will wreak havoc in Essex. My constituents are desperately worried. It would be monstrous, the decision having been so long delayed, if the Government even dreamed of making an announcement when the House was practically up and many hon. Members were not able to speak their minds as we can at this moment. I hope that we shall hear from the Leader of the House that nothing like that will happen and that any decision which the Government propose to take will be properly announced when the House is back or, alternatively, that the House will not go away for Whitsun but will have ample opportunity to debate the matter at length. On this and the other matters to which I have referred we must have satisfaction from the Treasury Bench.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish, first, to raise a question of procedure. I shall not trouble the House

with it for more than a few moments, but I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House that, before we return after the Recess, he will give serious thought to the method by which we record the votes of hon. Members on important issues. When hon. Members abstain in Divisions on important issues, could not a method be devised for recording such abstentions in the columns of HANSARD? I raised this question on on earlier occasion with a previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), and he promised to give it serious consideration, but there were not many occasions thereafter on which there were abstentions. Recently, however, there has been a series of Divisions in which hon. Members on both sides have felt that abstention was the best way to register their views. It is important that such abstensions should be recorded in the columns of HANSARD so that reference could be made to them later.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It would be difficult to distinguish between those who genuinely abstained and those who were just not here. Those who were not here might not wish to have their names recorded in HANSARD as having been absent.

Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to discuss the merits of the question. That could come later. I want an assurance from the Leader of the House, who is progressive and enlightened in these matters, that he will continue the consideration which was promised to me by, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West when he was Leader of the House. There are occasions when hon. Members do not wish to be associated with any particular Motion but take an attitude which can, perhaps, be described as positive abstention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he is in favour of adjourning or not?

Mr. Hughes: I am not in favour of adjourning until we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that he will continue the consideration which was promised to me by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. When abstentions occur on both sides of the House, difficulties are caused in various ways. For


example, representatives of the Press do not know who has abstained because of principle or because they were ill and not present. All I ask is that, during the Recess, my right hon. Friend will give his earnest consideration to this matter and report to us when he has done so.
I entirely agree with what has been said by hon. Members about Greece and Vietnam, but I wish now to refer to Scotland. No one can say that Scotland has taken a great deal of the time of the House this week. I understand that one Member, and one only, expressed views about Scotland in the Common Market debate.

Sir D. Glover: Two.

Mr. Hughes: Only two, then. I make no complaint against the right of the Chair to select speakers. What I say is that, on the occasion of an important debate such as that, a Minister for Scotland should put the Scottish point of view. I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House, before we rise for the Recess, that a statement will be made about how Scotland will be affected economically if we go into the Common Market. It is an entirely new line in procedure that Scotland should be completely ignored and the question of, say, agriculture in Scotland be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture in England.
Many of us who come from Scotland will have great difficulty during the Recess in explaining these matters to our constituents if we do not have a statement from the Secretary of State or the Minister responsible for agriculture at the Scottish Office. I do not want to interrupt the proceedings tomorrow. I do not ask for any special attendance, and I do not wish to impose upon the Secretary of State's time, but I ask the Leader of the House to give us an assurance that a statement will be made giving Members representing Scottish constituencies information which will enable them to explain to their constituents what changes will be likely to affect them if we go into the Common Market.
I say this as one representing a constituency where there are many milk producers. I should like the matter to be spelt out so that I can tell my farmer constituents what they are likely to be in for and exactly how the Common Market

arrangements for milk will affect dairy fanners.

Sir Stephen McAdden: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he suggesting that those hon. Members representing Scottish seats who cast their votes yesterday voted without any knowledge of what they were doing?

Mr. Hughes: I cast no aspersions on my colleagues from Scotland or England. I only say that they would have been better informed on how they could vote if we had had spelt out exactly how the people who live by the production of milk will be affected by the proposals. Like hon. Members opposite, I spend some time in the Whitsun Recess talking to farmers, and naturally Scottish farmers, who are anxious to know how they will fare under the proposals, will ask, "How are we affected?". I shall say, "Read the White Paper on Agriculture", and they will say, "But we have no statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland". They will press me and tell me that the White Paper says that under the proposals there will be less profitability in the production of milk. Less profitability in the production of anything is serious. When they ask me to spell the matter out I shall be unable to do so unless we get a statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is spelling out his comments in too great detail to keep in order. He must relate his remarks to the Motion, which is about the adjournment for the Recess.

Mr. Hughes: I shall not proceed further on that, except to say that I think that I have proved my case that Scottish Members visiting their constituents are entitled to a fuller explanation about matters affecting Scotland than they have already had. We have had a debate without a Scottish Minister having an opportunity of telling us the exact position.
We shall also inevitably be asked as Scottish Members how the decision will affect the advance factories position. If the Common Market proposals come into effect, how far will that prevent the advance factories being built in Scotland,


and how far will it mean that there will be a continuation of the drift south?
I suggest that I have said enough to show that there should be a clear statement—not necessarily a White Paper—from the Scottish Office, showing the people of Scotland exactly how they are likely to fare in the negotiations. I believe that I will have the majority of my Scottish colleagues on both sides of the House with me in asking that some kind of statement should be made from the Scottish Office before we rise for the Whitsun Recess.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: It is by coincidence that I happen to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), with whom I completely agree. I wish to reinforce his point but do not wish to delay the business of the House for more than a few minutes. I was one of those unfortunate enough to sit through the greater part of the three-day debate on our entry to the Common Market and not catch the eye of the Chair. Although I very much regretted that, I regretted still more the fact that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor any other Minister seemed to appreciate that the conditions for Scotland's entry are somewhat different to those for England's.
For example, we are an exporting country of agricultural products, and in many other ways our economy and general conditions are very different to those of England. It is often overlooked that by the Treaty of Union of 1707 two kingdoms, two equal partners, were joined as the United Kingdom.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are important remarks, but I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman relates them to the Motion. He must do that.

Mr. Davidson: My relation to the Motion is precisely that of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. [Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I called the attention of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire to the fact that he was getting out of Order.

Mr. Davidson: I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My relation to

the matter of the adjournment of the House is that before it takes place I should like to see not only a full statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland but an undertaking, which perhaps the Leader of the House will obtain from the Secretary of State, that at a very early opportunity we shall have a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the effects on Scotland of Britain's entry into the Common Market. This is absolutely essential.
May I just revert to the position about the Union? The point has been made by a leading Scottish judge that the whole Treaty of Union would fall to be re-examined in the event of the United Kingdom's accession to the Common Market.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that that should take place before the Recess?

Mr. Davidson: It should certainly have taken place in the course of Ministers' answering two points raised during the debate on our entry into the Common Market. During that three-day debate only three Scottish Members were called. One was speaking as Front-Bench spokesman for the Official Opposition and, therefore, did not particularly treat the Scottish side of the question; one other Scottish Member just spoke very briefly on the matter of Scotland's position on our entry; and only one member from the Government side spoke on the question of Scotland's entry—and that occupied only a paragraph or two of HANSARD. The question should be examined carefully.
I do not agree with the contention of the judge to whom I referred that the Treaty of Union would fall to be renegotiated in the event of the United Kingdom's accession. I studied the Treaty from end to end very carefully once again at the weekend. But this is a point of dispute in Scotland. It will be put to Scottish Members during the three weeks of the Recess, and we should have some statement on the matter.
I hope that the Leader of the House will forcibly put to the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is a real need for a separate debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the effect on Scotland on entry to the Common Market.
I was one of those who voted in favour of entry, but we should be able to impress these points about Scotland's position on those who will be starting negotiations, or starting basic work for their negotiations, during the three weeks that the House is in Recess.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I do not think that the House should adjourn until there has been a clear and unequivocal statement by the Government about affairs in Greece. The Government should not stand mute when a democracy dies.
There are two very special reasons why a statement should be made at an early date, before we adjourn, and the point was put succinctly in an editorial in the Observer. First, the discreet attitude adopted towards the Greek coup by both the British and American Governments, in contrast to the forthright condemnation by the Danes, is being exploited by the new régime and is giving no comfort to the Greek democrats, by whom it is being treated as a betrayal. Secondly, the British and American Governments will have to find ways of bringing home to the régime in Athens that its action is not only politically disreputable but is also a danger to the Western Alliance. The longer repudiation is stayed the greater the encouragement to the illegal régime.
One should remember that, during our Recess, were it not for the coup on 21st April, democratic elections would have been held in Greece and would undoubtedly have resulted in the return of a Social Democrat Government. That is why the coup took place. The matters to which the Government should address themselves in a statement of opinion are the normal trappings of dictatorship: the forgery of the King's signature; the arrest of ex-Prime Ministers; the detention of at least one British citizen; the removal of all guarantees to personal liberty, including the removal of guarantees of non-execution for political offences, and the locking up of 5,000 to 7,000 political prisoners in an island which has been called the "Devil's Island" of the Mediterranean.
I recognise that it is normal in diplomacy, even where a Prime Minister or

President democratically elected is executed, deposed or detained, to establish diplomatic relations with his successor within about a fortnight and to forget all about the tyranny of the new régime. I realise also that it is not usual for Her Majesty's Government to make statements about the internal affairs of another country—and therefore I am anticipating the reasons why the Government may not wish to make a statement.
Nevertheless, a statement should be made. We should, first, express the gravest concern that, for the first time since the end of the war, democracy in Western Europe has given place to a dictatorship in one of the countries.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Czechoslovakia."] I said Western Europe. I am referring to the N.A.T.O. countries and those associated with them.
One would have thought that the lessons of the 1930s—of Spain, Italy, Germany and of Greece itself in 1937—would have been sufficient warning. The fact that we had to fight a war in which millions of lives were lost in order to defend political democracy in Western Europe should surely have been a lesson.
Secondly, Greece is a member of N.A.T.O. It seems that every time a military coup takes place—this happened in Turkey as well—the first thing the new régime says is that it will be a loyal member of N.A.T.O. But being a loyal member of N.A.T.O. surely does not automatically give a certificate of political virginity. It does not involve dispensation from democracy but obligations towards it. The Preamble to the Treaty says that the parties to it
… are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.
Article 2 says that the parties to the Treaty, in order to strengthen N.A.T.O., undertake to strengthen their own free institutions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into far too much detail. He is debating the merits of the subject, which is not relevant to the Motion.

Mr. Fraser: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to anticipate the reasons that the Government may advance for not making a statement about


Greece before the Recess. Nevertheless, I submit that they should make a statement because this is a test case for freedom. Many things have been done by N.A.T.O. countries in order to keep our freedom. Vast sums of money have been spent and very many people conscripted into the Armed Forces. We are now at a great test of democracy and I submit that we should have a Government statement about the ending of democracy in the country which gave the very word to the world.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I submit that we should not go into recess until two matters have been cleared up. One is personal to me and the other is general. The personal is the least important and I take it first. I was asked yesterday to do a broadcast on the subject of defence today and, for that reason, I missed Question Time. I returned at 5.30 p.m. to receive a letter from the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds).
My whereabouts during the morning and the early part of the afternoon were well known to my secretary, and if the hon. Member had wished to get in touch with me he could have used the telephone. I understand that he accused me at Question Time of making an illegal broadcast over Radio 270. I understand that the Postmaster-General said that it was not illegal.
It is, therefore, only right that this matter should be cleared up before the House goes into recess. We have an hon. Member accusing another hon. Member of an illegal act and the Government saying that it was not illegal. I have heard no further information from the hon. Member for Smethwick. I hope he will follow the normal convention of the House and apologise for making this comment when I was not present.
The second issue that the House should discuss before the Recess and the reason why we should not go into recess until we have had a statement concerns the subject of my broadcast over Radio 270—the future of our relations with Rhodesia. During this Recess, the campaign of sanctions will presumably continue. They are certainly having a certain effect in Rhodesia and are affecting the majority of Africans more than the minority of Europeans.
During the Recess, undoubtedly our economy will again be hampered by this campaign of sanctions, which it is estimated will cost the country about £150 million by the end of the year—and this at a time when we are trying to put the economy in order before entering the E.E.C.
The Government should make some statement that they are willing to try and resume talks with Mr. Smith's Government in Rhodesia. If they do not do so, this long war of attrition will continue until such time as the United Nations demands the imposition of sanctions on the whole of Southern Africa and the dispute has escalated to the grave damage of this country and of Rhodesia. But I must admit that that will happen after the Recess and not before it.
If the Government say that negotiating with so-called rebels would be appeasement, I would reply that it has happened once before during this dispute. The Government changed their tune between January and November last year and it would ill-become the Treasury Bench to talk about appeasement in view of the statement about Aden today.
Both from the personal point of view and from the point of view of the honour of the country in our relations with the South Arabian Federation and our moral obligation to the Government of that Federation, and because the people of this country are getting increasingly worried about the campaign of sanctions against Rhodesia, these matters should be cleared up before the Recess.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooky: I want to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) when he said that events far from this country could have grave consequences for our people. I do not wish to follow his remarks further on the subject of Vietnam, although I do not dissent essentially from what he said. But I believe that we should not adjourn for the Recess until a statement has been made about an event of considerable importance which this House, to my knowledge, has passed over in silence or has almost completely ignored.
This is the special meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations which has taken place during the last


fortnight on the subject of South-West Africa. That area is about as far away from here as it is possible to get in the inhabited globe and it may seem to be a remote and inconsequential matter for us in this kingdom to trouble ourselves about the affairs of the inhabitants of that territory.
I suggest that the case is very much otherwise. The Government have, rightly, repeatedly declared their support for the United Nations and the importance they attach to it as an instrument for the promotion of the rule of law and the harmonious development of international relations. I agree with that declaration in principle and with that general policy and I welcome the fact that today some edge and sharpness were given to that policy by the statement on Aden by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The Government cannot applaud and use and support the United Nations in certain matters when we seek its help and support only to shrug off the opinions and machinery of the United Nations when, in a subject or dispute, they happen to be inconvenient to our interests.
I should be out of order if I went into all the inequities of apartheid. I need say only that they have been summed up in six searing words by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who described them as morally abominable, intellectually grotesque, spiritually indefensible. They could hardly have been more succinctly and more exactly damned than that, and I agree with every one of those words. I therefore believe that before the House adjourns it is entitled to some statement, some resume, some indication of the Government's appraisal of the discussions in the recent special meeting of the General Assembly.
This is not an odd townsmeeting in a village somewhere in the world. This is the great international forum of the only international organisation to which we belong and which is specifically and precisely dedicated to upholding the rule of law. We are entitled to some reasoned statement of what the Government consider to be the progress of the deliberations on South-West Africa. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) referred to an example of the violation of human rights in Guyana. I agree with him that it is important, and if he wishes

to raise it in the House, I shall support him in an investigation of the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a long way from the Motion. He must come to the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess.

Mr. Hooley: I am sorry. I will forbear to wander into these fascinating bypaths.
But if it is right for an hon. Member to raise an individual question of human rights, and I believe it is, it is equally right that I, or any other hon. Member, on this Motion, should raise a question touching the human rights of 500,000 people in South-West Africa, a territory governed under a mandate conferred upon His Britannic Majesty 40 years ago and which, although now exercised by a sovereign State which, alas, is no longer a member of the Commonwealth, is a mandate solemnly conferred and to be exercised strictly on behalf of the well-being of the inhabitants of that territory. As the special meeting of the General Assembly has been concerned——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into far too much detail. He must argue in favour of or against the Motion.

Mr. Hooley: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept your Ruling.
This meeting is of such importance and of such consequence to the whole peace of Southern Africa that the House is entitled, before it adjourns for the Whit-sun Recess and we forget about these things and allow them to slip out of the minds of the public, at least to a resume of the Government's opinion of the progress made in this matter within the machinery of the United Nations.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Over the last 24 hours and, we understand, tomorrow, we have had a spate of Government statements all of which have been statements of the sort which ought to be debated in full. For instance, the statement on Aden this afternoon should have been debated in full. Time should have been given for it. For instance, we want to know what information and advice the Minister without Portfolio brought back from Aden and gave to the Foreign Secretary. We want to know


whether that advice was rejected by the Foreign Secretary and, if so, whether the Minister without Portfolio will resign, as could easily happen if our understanding of what was brought back is correct.
I cannot believe that the Leader of the House, who is responsible for looking after the rights of all hon. Members, cannot assist us to have a statement tomorrow about Stansted Airport, a matter which vitally affects a tremendous number of hon. Members, mostly, I admit, on the Opposition side. It would be an absolutely scurrilous dereliction of duty if the right hon. Gentleman were a party to any movement which did not enable a statement like that to be made.
The statement by the Secretary of State for Defence earlier today should have been debated. We want to know whether he intends to try to introduce a corps of infantry, for example. These matters were only vaguely covered by his statement, and they should have been debated.
There is also the issue which I raised with the Leader of the House in business questions on 27th April. The right hon. Gentleman has given facilities for a very important and wide-ranging debate concerning the interests of one animal. I want to know whether he will give equal facilities to a Bill, introduced by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), which is concerned with children, who are at least as important as animals. The right hon. Gentleman could give time for debating that important Bill if he reduced the length of the Recess.
We should have answers to those and other questions before we adjourn, or we should come back earlier to deal with them.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: The House ought not to adjourn without clarification about the nature of the application, made this morning, to join the European Economic Community. It is widely reported in the Press that this is a clear and uncluttered application, but the application follows the Motion which the House passed last night and which provided that an approach should be made on the terms of the White Paper which, in effect, repeated the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 2nd May.
In that statement, my right hon. Friend said:
… the Government would be prepared to accept the Treaty of Rome, subject to the necessary adjustments consequent upon the accession of a new member and provided that we receive satisfaction on the points about which we see difficulty. It is in this spirit that the Government intend to embark on the negotiations which must precede entry."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 311.]
Far from that being a clear and uncluttered application to join, it is hedged about with a number of safeguards. I am fortified in that belief by the speeches from the Treasury Bench——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure how this is related to the Motion and to whether we should adjourn. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Motion.

Mr. Roebuck: I am saying that a reason why the House should not adjourn is so that we can have clarification about the nature of the application which was made this morning on behalf of the Government to join the European Economic Community. My point is that it is widely reported that this is a clear and uncluttered application, which is not what the House approved last night.
I am fortified in that belief by the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. No one could suggest that his speech, with all its reservations, indicated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a clear and uncluttered application. I am further fortified in my contention by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, who said that if certain safeguards were not forthcoming there would be a withdrawal——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing the same line which I suggested to him was out of order. I must insist that he comes into order and addresses himself to the Motion.

Mr. Roebuck: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had sought to argue my case and to seek your guidance.
This matter is a cause of great alarm to the country as a whole, and it would be very wrong if we were to adjourn


with this great constitutional issue hanging over us. This House came to a decision last night that an application should be made to join, but hedged about with certain safeguards. There are reports in the Press this morning that a clear and uncluttered application to join has been made. My contention is that the House should not adjourn until we have clarification from the Front Bench as to the precise nature of this application. I have sought to demonstrate the difficulty ill which I am placed, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to assist me.
There is a further reason why I believe that the House should not adjourn, and that is because I feel that we ought to have some discussion about Commonwealth trade in the light of the communiqué issued after the last Commonwealth Trade Ministers' meeting last year. In that communiqué there were indications that a big effort would be made to expand Commonwealth trade. In view of certain speeches which have been made, there is great doubt in the Commonwealth about whether that is now the Government's intention. I earnestly seek reassurance on these matters before the adjournment of the House.

6 12 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) has spoken with great force about his anxiety that there should be some assurance on certain points concerning the negotiations over the Common Market before the adjournment of the House. I have great sympathy with him, and I am sure that this sympathy is felt by the Leader of the House because I recall the right hon. Gentleman in 1962 arguing with great force about the indispensability of the statutory Milk Marketing Board. It is precisely those kind of points on which one would like greater clarification, as they concern the move towards negotiations.
It is not on that point that I wish to address my brief remarks. The Motion says that the House, at its rising tomorrow, should adjourn till Wednesday, 31st May. I have very serious reservations about passing such a Motion, and my reservations arise from the fact that it is absolutely essential that the House should be in Session at various point in the development of the Government's

prices and income policy, when issue of great significance may be decided, not by law but by Ministerial exhortation. Ministerial nodding or winking.
Such a point of vital development is undoubtedly before the House today. There are events which have occurred today which to my mind, give special moment to the argument that we must have the maximum clarification from the Government about the development of the prices and incomes policy. The first point arises from the performance of the Minister of State at the Department of Economic Affairs during Question Time when, confronted with a variety of questions, from both sides of the House, concerning the prices element of the prices and incomes policy, he went out of his way to assure the House that he relied upon the Confederation of British Industry to be the main agent in voluntary policy.
A reason why he must go one stage further and clarify this statement to the House, certainly by tomorrow, is because the Confederation of British Industry, by its charter, excludes the retail trade. Most of the Questions directed to him earlier today concerned the movement of retail prices, and this is a movement for which the Confederation could, with every justification, disclaim any responsibility.
The second point arises from a newspaper article. I quote from today's Financial Times, which says:
A pay claim on behalf of the 50 ushers in London's Royal Courts of Justice goes to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, today. The Civil Service Union want the maximum pay rates to be increased from £14 7s. 6d. to £16 15s. 6d. The union blames the present shortage of ushers on low pay.
What is significant in relation to the Motion before the House is that it is today that this claim goes to a Government Department.
It is not sufficient to say that this is a matter of a mere 50 people. We know that the House was enjoined to invoke the law against 20 people who were the employees of the Crown Bedding Company. The point of immense significance is the figure of £16 15s. 6d, because the movement to that figure passes through the magic figure of £15, which we know is advanced by Mr. Frank Cousins—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now discuss the details of the case which he wants the House to debate.

Mr. Biffen: As our whole knowledge of what constitutes a lowest-paid worker depends on Ministerial statements, either to the public or, more happily, to this House from the Dispatch Box, and in the light of the fact that, on previous occasions, reference has been made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to Mr. Cousins's figure of £15 in connection with what constitutes a lowest-paid worker, it is of immense importance that we should know what is the Government's reaction to a claim of this character, which has gone to them today?
If we do not get some reassurance within the immediate future, there is the danger that new attitudes will develop, new nuances will proceed in the prices and incomes policy during the period that the House is in Recess, between tomorrow and Wednesday, 31st May. This will be in a time when there may be Government operating not through law, but from White Paper and indicated Ministerial wishes. It is very perilous indeed for the House to allow this situation to pass unchallenged.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Barber: I rise at this stage, because, although at least one of my hon. Friends still wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a proposition to the Leader of the House and give him time to consider it. I shall be as brief as I can, and will not attempt to refer to all the points that have been raised on this Motion. I want to endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) had to say about some observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). The right hon. Gentleman was referring to a former Speaker, and he accused your predecessor of, and I took his words down,
a serious dereliction of duty.
I will not go over the merits of the case again—they were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. All that I wish to say is that I believe that those words

were wholly unjustified. I know the right hon. Member for Leeds, West well, and I have a high regard for him. Having made my point I want to say, as did my right hon. Friend, that I hope that the right hon. Member will, when he reads HANSARD, reconsider what he said an hour or so ago. I would urge him to reconsider this unfortunate and totally unjustified phrase.
Reference has been made to the need for further clarification before we rise for the Recess of the Government's policy concerning Vietnam. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) put the point very clearly when he said that he would like a reaffirmation by a member of the Government of the Prime Minister's statement about the bombing of North Vietnam—a statement which had previously been made by the Prime Minister and which, in the words of the hon. Member, was "now being violated". In the light of all that has happened in the past few days, it is a very strange assumption to make that the Prime Minister adheres to a policy statement which he made some months ago. In any event, as is clear from what the hon. Member for Penistone said, whatever the answer he gets today, he is determined to go away for his fortnight's holiday.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames raised the question of the London borough elections. He said that he would be happy to forgo the fortnight's Recess if the Government, in the light of all that had happened, were prepared to introduce legislation to allow the normal elections of the London boroughs to take place. We know that the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to my right hon. Friend's very sensible suggestion, but I believe that he had a very good point. If political opinions in the country had not changed, one might say, "It does not matter very much if these people are not allowed to choose their councillors this year" However, we know that throughout the country Labour candidates are being trounced and, therefore, I believe that my right hon. Friend was right to make his request.

Mr. Roebuck: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it has always been Conservative Party policy to postulate that local elections should be concerned


with local matters? What is happening in the country as a result of the Government's general economic policy, and so on, should have no bearing whatsoever on local elections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not be tempted to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barber: May I be allowed to say that if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the electorate in the local elections are not satisfied with the Government's policy, I entirely agree with him.
I refer, in passing, to two matters which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—the very sad case of a Mr. Wilson, of Guyana, and another very unhappy case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I hope that the Leader of the House will say something about those two cases. There have been references to Aden and to the Foreign Secretary's statement today, but I think that the least said about that the better.
I turn to a matter which has been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), Ormskirk, Chigwell and Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. It concerns the possibility of a statement being made before we rise for the Summer Recess about a new airport at Stansted. I should like to say in no uncertain terms that if it is the Government's intention, as has been suggested in this morning's newspapers, that a statement on a matter of this importance should be made tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock, that would be quite intolerable. Whatever the merits of the Government's ultimate proposals, the fact is that what they are to decide and announce will affect hundreds of thousands of people in London, Essex and in the area concerned.
The Government have behind them a majority of 100. Therefore, there is no point in my right hon. and hon. Friends dividing the House on this Motion; we have other very important business to get on with. However, I hope that the Leader of the House will note the very strong feeling which there is on this matter. Certainly, hundreds of thousands of people in London and Essex will know

that if the statement is made tomorrow at 11 o'clock the Government are doing everything possible to avoid critical examination of their proposal by the House of Commons. We know that the statement is ready, and we do not want the making of it to be delayed until after the Recess.
Therefore, I conclude by making a proposal to the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that it would be possible in the course of today's business, in between the Orders of the Day, for him or any other member of the Government to move, "That this House do now adjourn". The statement could be made and then the Motion could be withdrawn. That would mean that we could this evening, when there are plenty of people around the House, have a statement on Stansted Airport and we would be able to examine it. I am sure that the Opposition Chief Whip will support me when I say that if the Goverment make this statement tonight instead of at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning we will do everything in our power to ensure that undue time is not wasted.

Mr. David Winnick: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way before he sits down?

Mr. Barber: I have sat down.

6.26 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I apologise for not being in the House for the earlier part of the debate. I doubt whether I should have intervened if the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) had not rather goaded me into action.
I have been here long enough to have heard Members press for debates on subjects in which they are interested—Greece, Vietnam, Rhodesia, South-West Africa, and so on—over many of which the Government do not have direct control. The hon. Member for Penistone, whom I am glad to see present—I should not have liked to comment on his speech in his absence—asked for a Government statement that if there were any escalation of the war in Vietnam we should be recalled. This brings me straight to the question of what is escalation.

Mr. Mendelson: I said that if the escalation which seems to be proceeding were to create such a threatening international situation and other Powers


looked like entering the war, the House should be recalled.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: It is a matter of definition. Assurances given by the Government at the end of debates on Motions like this are very risky things.
We have only to look at the Order Paper every day to see reasons why the House should not adjourn for the proposed length of time. Many questions are never reached. Ministers are quite inaccessible—and the Leader of the House knows that I have views about that. Day after day we hear hon. Members giving notice that they will raise a matter on the Adjournment and we all know that it is little more than a joke because there just is not time to deal with it. These are some reasons why, in my view, we should not adjourn for this length of time.
I should like to have a specific assurance from the Leader of the Opposition on a matter in which we have a direct interest and a direct responsibility—Gibraltar. We have heard about flight restrictions, which I regard not only as unjustified but as dangerous to life and limb. We have heard that travel agents, on the basis of some threat which may or may not have been made by the Spanish Government, propose to route their tours, not through Gibraltar, thus doing damage to Gibraltar's trade and industry, but direct to Spain.
We understand that a threat has been made or is on the verge of being made by the Spanish Government, and the specific undertaking which I want from the right hon. Gentleman before I assent to this Motion is that the House will be recalled immediately if any further restriction is placed by the Spanish Government upon travel between Gibraltar and Spain. In those circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to give me that assurance.
I have been in the House for as long as the right hon. Gentleman, and I have seen similar Motions debated many times. He and I have both seen the shadowboxing and the paper tigers; indeed, we have both been paper tigers in our time. The hon. Member for Penistone suggested that I had come into the Chamber for a bit of fun and did not intend to do anything. I do not ask for ten hon. Gentle-

men opposite to accompany me through the Division Lobby. If I can find one to tell in a Division, I personally will divide the House.

6.31 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): At the end of this debate, it is difficult to reply to all the points which have been raised. I must try, but I would ask hon. Gentlemen for patience and endurance while I am doing so.
This has been a characteristic Adjournment debate, but rather more so than some, because few Members have complained about the extra day which we have and given the impression that they do not want a holiday. I must say that I share their view.
I shall deal with individual cases first, because, by tradition, we give priority to special cases in this debate, and the hon. Members who have raised them have a right to answers.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) raised a case which I must say, quite frankly, was not in my brief. I have obtained a "hot" brief from Whitehall about Mrs. Wilson—the other Mrs. Wilson. My information is that she has not been served with a deportation order by the Government of Guyana. Her home is in that country, and she has not asked to be brought to this country. I might add that, shortly before Mr. Wilson left Guyana, he wrote a letter to our High Commission staff expressing his thanks for what had been done for him and his wife. That may not be the last word on the episode, but it is the best answer that I can give at the moment. I believe that we have the full information, and I hope that it is right, in which case we have less ground for alarm——

Sir D. Glover: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say how grateful I am for that reply, because I had not given him notice that I intended to raise the matter. However, I am still uncertain and unhappy about the position between this man and his wife, and I hope that the Commonwealth Office will make further inquiries.

Mr. Crossman: The position between the man and his wife is something into which I did not inquire.
I turn now to a matter of which the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) did give me notice. The position in Zambia is extremely disconcerting. I am glad he mentioned the Daily Express reporter John Monks, who went to Lusaka for the hearing and who has now been declared a prohibited immigrant, for reasons which we should be unlikely to find justifiable. All that I can say is that our High Commissioner has drawn to the attention of the Government of Zambia that it is wrong in inter-rational law to detain citizens of another country except for the purpose of instituting criminal proceedings or deporting them. We are applying all the pressure that we can. However, it should be remembered that Zambia has the right to protect her public security, and I should hesitate to judge the acts of an independent Commonwealth Government until we know the full facts. We are not prejudging the issue. The Zambian Government claim that they have a case. However, we have a duty to look after our citizens, but I think that we must wait and see if there is a substantial case made out against them, as the Zambian Government assert there can be.
I turn now to the foreign affairs subjects raised by different hon. Members, and I deal, first, with Greece. I am glad that reference was made to the impression that Her Majesty's Government view with complete indifference what is happening in Greece. That is completely untrue, and I am sorry that impression has been created. I personally am deeply shocked and profoundly alarmed at what is happening there, as are all members of the Government. Not only is Greece a democracy, but a traditional friend of this country which many of us like in modern as well as ancient times. It is a shock for us that Greek democracy should be treated in this way.
However, shocked as we are, it is important to proceed in company with our N.A.T.O. allies. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkin-sop) referred to the attitude of Norway and Denmark. He is not quite right in what he says. It is true that the Danes took a strong view at first, whereas the Norwegians took our own view. It is clear that, although our N.A.T.O. allies feel that there is no question of recognising formally this new group of colonels, it is important to put on all pressure to get

a restoration of democracy without civil war in Greece; and everything conceivable is being done to ensure that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penis-tone (Mr. Mendelson) referred to the report in the Greek Press issued by the Greek Government that the British Ambassador had spoken as though he approved of the régime. The most strenuous objection was taken by the Ambassador at once, and I think that it will be found in tomorrow's newspapers that it has been made clear that the Ambassador did nothing of the sort. If he had, he would have been acting against the instructions of the Government. I am glad that the point was raised, so that it could be put straight.
So much for Greece, about which hon. Members on both sides are deeply concerned. I turn next to Vietnam, where there is the gravest danger of escalation. The situation is extremely dangerous at present, in view of the attitude of both sides. I can only give the precise assurance for which I was asked. Of course, the Government would ask for the recall of Parliament if the situation in Vietnam developed in such a way as to endanger world peace.
But there is no change in the Government's attitude. There are differences between the Government and my hon. Friend. The Government are convinced that our present attitude is right and that our rôle is the correct one. If a chance came of achieving peace, we think that that rôle could be used to good effect. However, if there was a serious change in the situation and the threat of world war, Parliament would be recalled at once.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) spoke about Rhodesia. I do not think that there is very much to reply to in what he said except to recall that he makes his points with great persuasion.
I was touched and moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about South-West Africa. He was right to remind us. Certainly, it reminded me that we need to debate this kind of subject, and it is a good thing that we have such occasions as the debate on the Adjournment for the Whitsun Recess to hear such a good speech on a very important subject.
As for Gibraltar, the Government are as concerned as my hon. Friend about what is happening there and about the effects of British companies suddenly deciding to put their tourists through Spain and not Gibraltar. This is being taken with extreme seriousness by the Government, but I am sure that my hon. Friend does not really think that, with the present Foreign Secretary, much will be given away in Gibraltar while we are in Recess at Whitsuntide.
I turn to procedure. My old opponent the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Ormskirk both raised this matter, and I will give them the assurance which they do not want. Our Sessional Order will remain in action throughout the Session. We agreed to have an experiment which lasted for the Session, and it would not be much of an experiment if we did not try it out for a period of time to see how it went. There are already signs of improvements which can be made, but we shall not modify the Sessional Order. We shall carry on with our Monday and Wednesday beanos just as happily after Whitsun as we have so far.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Must that necessarily cover the almost accidental arrangement by which the main debates on Mondays and Wednesdays end at half-past nine? I think that this has proved to be very unsatisfactory.

Mr. Crossman: I think that it is worth considering whether we might say to ourselves, "This could be changed, as it is a nuisance to us". I would like to be able to do this. I shall think about it, and discuss it through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman implied that we were anxious to use the Guillotine on the Finance Bill. I know that this was said in debate, but the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the aim of both sides of the House is not to do so. There is no intention to use it. I think that the negotiations about this are starting today, in the normal way that these things are done. I am convinced that we shall do this by means of a friendly arrangement, and that the safeguard will not be brought out of the cupboard into the open, because this is the last thing that I want. It will, in a

sense, demonstrate failure if that happens. There is no immediate threat of the Guillotine, and I would like to think that it will not have to be used to get a reasonable timetable this year, which was the object of the debate.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that we had had an unsatisfactory debate, and not enough procedural change. We are not doing too badly. It took a long time before those who thought that we ought to go forward cautiously with the Finance Bill got their way. We got there after three attempts, one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and one at night, and finally, we carried the important experimental Order.
The hon. Gentleman also said that I did not believe in extending the powers of back benchers. I think that he is wrong. I do believe in it, and I think that the way to get it is through specialist Committees. Perhaps he did not notice what happened this morning—something small, but unprecedented. For the first time a Minister gave evidence before one of our new Select Committees. He was summoned by the Committee, and cross-examined. I say that it is giving increased power to back benchers if we create and encourage institutions by means of which back benchers can summon Ministers to appear before them and be examined. I think that by the time I have done my job I shall convert the hon. Gentleman not only to believing that I mean to get something done, but liking what is being done by this side of the House to step up continuous control of the Executive by the House, both on the Floor, and in specialist Committees.
I come now to the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames for the repeal of the London Government Act. The right hon. Gentleman revealed a secret when he said that I would say, "No". I do not think that we shall find time to debate this before or after the Whitsun Recess, or before the end of the Session, or at all. I do not think that the question of who wins and loses any set of elections should be the deciding factor as to whether there is a certain form of constitution. I think that, on merit, we should split and have the G.L.C. elections at one time and the borough elections at another.
There are, of course, two views on this. Some of my hon. Friends have said it


would have been better for us this year if they had been run at the same time, but this is a question of political advantage. I think that we have to measure the changes we make on some basis of constitutional merit. That was the basis on which we worked, so I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman said was particularly relevant.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to refight that old battle, but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that an alternative method was offered to him of splitting the G.L.C. and borough election dates, without continuing the mandates of councillors in office. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, that who wins is not necessarily decisive, but when, by an Act of Parliament, we postpone an election, we keep people in office, and it aggravates the situation when we know that by so doing we are keeping in office a party which would not be in office if the electors had the right to exercise their vote at the normal time.

Mr. Crossman: We are in danger of fighting that battle again. I think that I made my point clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked whether, during the Recess, I would reflect on the possibility of abstention, not casual abstention, but deliberate abstention, being recorded in the Division Lists. I hear that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) took an interest in this. I am like the Alhenians: I like new ideas. The idea of enabling Members to show different flavours appeals to me, and we ought to think about this.
My hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is away at the moment. I have not been in touch with him, but his view is different from mine, and I would not, therefore, like to commit myself. However, like the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, I am attracted by the idea, and I am prepared to go away and, without consulting the Patronage Secretary, to reflect on the matter for a fortnight and then see what he says about it. I hope that if I give my hon. Friend that assurance he will let us have the Whitsun Recess unreduced.

Sir D. Glover: I am not saying that I support that proposal, but it is the official practice at the United Nations.

Mr. Crossman: Of course it is, but can all good ideas at the United Nations be grafted on to House of Commons procedure? That is a large assumption.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Including the veto.

Mr. Crossman: Yes.
My hon. Friend also said that during the three-day debate on the Common Market the House did not get a fair picture of the effect which joining the Common Market would have on Scottish milk farmers. I am interested in the possible effects on milk farmers in the Midlands, and there are many English Members who have certain regional milk interests. I would remind my hon. Friend that it is not only in Scotland that people like to know about these things. Occasionally, English people think that they should have the kind of investigation into their special local difficulties which the Scots instinctively demand for themselves. If my hon. Friend thinks that this matter should be debated in the Scottish Grand Committee, perhaps I might suggest that we should have a Mercian Grand Committee to debate the interests of farmers in the Midlands, and perhaps we can bring in farmers in Shropshire and North Oxfordshire.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) raised the question of prices and incomes. He is right to remind us that this is a continuing process in which big decisions are taken all the time. I cannot think of a Measure which has been better policed than this Act. We have had many debates between 10 and 11 o'clock at night, and there have been some interesting discoveries about our way of life. I do not think that if we leave for a fortnight without close attention to the detail of the Act there is any danger that something disastrous will happen, or that there will be a lapse into what the hon. Gentleman described as ministerial dictatorship.

Mr. James Davidson: In a slightly different context I raised the same subject as that raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I asked for an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would press his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to have a full debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the effect


which entry into the Common Market would have on Scotland. I referred to the controversy which there has been over the effect on the Act of Union.

Mr. Crossman: Looking at my notes, my eye leapt to the notation, "Aberdeenshire, West—Scottish Grand" but I got to it in connection with Ayrshire. I will, however, put to my right hon. Friend the point made by the hon. Gentleman, and impress on him that it was made.
I turn now to the important issue of Stansted. This is a House of Commons matter, and I want to explain what happened because I think that hon. Members have a right to a full explanation. The decision was taken comparatively recently by the Government, and I had the choice of trying to postpone it until after the Recess and announcing it on the first day we came back, or doing so before the House rose. I would have done it this afternoon, but I was told that the White Paper could not be got out in time. I had to decide whether to have a statement without the relevant White Paper, or at the same time. It will be made tomorrow morning, and the White Paper will be available. I am sure that the matter will have to be debated. It is one of the most important issues of the time, so if the Opposition say that a mere statement at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, followed by a few odd questions, is not enough, I shall say the same.
I happen to be an ex-Minister of Housing and Local Government and I know a good deal about this subject. I quite agree that this is a major issue, not only in respect of amenity, but of planning and air travel. It is a decision which, whichever way we make it, will influence the whole development of southern England for many years to come. I shall certainly look at it seriously in terms of a debate. I could not have a statement made alone; it would be a contempt of the House. The statement will have to be made tomorrow, not this afternoon, because we could not get the White Paper out in time.
I hope that this will be accepted by all those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate on the subject of Stansted.

Mr. Roebuck: Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about the terms

of our application to join the Common Market?

Mr. Crossman: The terms of our application are important, but my hon. Friend will have to find out—if he wants to find out—the form in which the application is being made. I should like to find out myself. We had better find out together, and discuss it. I cannot see how we can postpone our Whitsun Recess because of this.
I now turn to the subject which started our debate. A very considered speech was made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who has sent me a note apologising for having to go to a Committee upstairs. He will be able to read my reply in the record. I shall also reply briefly to the points made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).
I have not changed the pledge that my predecessor made, and that I made, that the House should debate this question. My right hon. Friend was quite right in adding that the nature of the debate has been widened by what has happened. A year ago we were thinking about an inquiry. One of my hon. Friends said that he thought that an inquiry was not now necessary because we probably knew most of the facts and wanted to assess their significance for Government and Parliament.
I agree that two aspects are involved—one of them being the propriety of publication. This is a new and undoubtedly important factor, because a breach of confidentiality in our relations with Government could only undermine the principles of Cabinet Government, but if we deny anybody the possibility of ever publishing anything we stifle debate, and we have the difficulty of making a fair and workable arrangement which does not favour the great, and the top ones against the lesser ones. These are relevant factors which, I hope, will be fully discussed in any debate we have.
About half an hour ago, in another place, a Second Reading was given to a Bill to reduce from 50 years to 30 years the period during which secret documents


were classified. A small step is being taken by both parties to see that more documents are released. Thirty years is much longer than 10 years. This issue needs careful thought and discussion, in terms of the period after which documents can be released.
There is also the issue of the relationship between Governments and the House of Commons, and the propriety of Government action. I shall not intervene in the conflict between the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West on the question whether or not the Profumo case is relevant to a debate on Suez. This is exactly the sort of thing that I presume we shall discuss when we have a big debate. That is an issue that we should talk over frankly with each other. I give the simple pledge that in my view there will be a debate.
I would, however, tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West that in the course of my replies to business questions I said two different things. I said on the first occasion that we had better wait until the publication of the book, and then, I notice, on the second occasion I said that it was
not unreasonable to wait until the book is published, or at least until the serial is completed in The Times … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 753.]
We shall have to discuss the question when we should have this debate. It might be in July, or earlier. There is no point in rushing it. We want a serious debate.

Mr. Pannell: What my right hon. Friend said is not a qualification. I do not want to judge Mr. Nutting or the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) out of context. We want to see everything that was said on the subject. This is the sort of difficulty that arises. I do not want to say any more than that at this stage.

Mr. Crossman: The second time I referred to it I gave myself the alternative of waiting for the completion of the serial in. The Times or the publication of the book. I shall bear in mind what my right hon. Friend has said. I do not want to rush into this debate. The House must seriously judge the issue, and face the problems of responsible Government

in a responsible way. We do not want to rush into it in order to make propaganda speeches against each other.
On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, in my view in such a debate anything relevant to Suez would be discussable. The conduct of the Leader of the Opposition could be discussed as well as that of the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South asked about the sanctity of the Charter of the United Nations. That would certainly be an area of discussion. One relevant aspect in this respect is the relationship of Suez to the United Nations Charter.
I was pleased with the tone of the speeches on this subject. It was clear that the matter was being treated in the proper way, which showed that hon. Members appreciated its importance in respect of the life of this House. With those provisoes I ask the permission of the House——

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I am trying to understand the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman about Gibraltar. What action will he take in the event of further restrictions being placed by the Spanish Government on travel between Gibraltar and Spain?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot any more than the Foreign Secretary could—give a purely hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn till Wednesday 31st May.

MALTA (GIFT OF A BOOK-CASE)

6.58 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Richard Crossman): I beg to move.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a book-case containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books to the House of Representatives of Malta, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if, in moving this Motion on the gift to Malta, I also referred to the Motion which I intend


to move relating to the gift to Zambia. These Motions are in the now established tradition of the House that we send a gift to the Legislature of a Commonwealth country to mark that country's entry into the Commonwealth. It is a tradition which we are glad to honour.
The House may recall that in July, 1964, the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question, informed the House that Her Majesty's Government would propose that the House should offer to the House of Representatives of Malta a gift of a book-case containing Parliamentary and Constitutional books of reference. In June of that year the Prime Minister also approved a suggestion that the House should offer a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Zambia. The Parliamentary authorities in Malta and Zambia, whose wishes were naturally consulted, welcomed this proposal and both gifts were specially designed and manufactured.
The gift to Malta is on display within the Palace of Westminster and the gift to Zambia will also be displayed shortly for Members to see.
If the House accepts these Motions, as I feel sure it will wish to do, arrangements will be made by you, Mr. Speaker, for small delegations from the House to present these gifts. We understand that presentations could conveniently be made in July.
I therefore commend these Motions to the House in the expectation that they will be accepted as an expression of our friendship and good will towards the

House of Representatives of Malta and the National Assembly of Zambia.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a book-case containing Parliamentary and Constitutional reference books to the House of Representatives of Malta, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

ZAMBIA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Zambia, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[Mr. Crossman.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

O.E.C.D. AND N.A.T.O.

Queen's Recommendation having been signified.

Resolved,

That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the costs of travel by thirteen Members of this House and seven Lords to Paris for the purpose of visiting the Headquarters of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Orders of the Day — SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 4.—(LOANS.)

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The House will know that I have had posted up a list of the Amendments which I have selected for consideration. I suggest that with Amendment No. 1, we should also discuss No. 2, in page 3, line 14, at end insert:
(iii) the construction and layout of a new shipbuilding yard or the construction of new building docks in an existing shipyard.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 10, at the end to insert 'structures, works'.
Hon. Members who were on the Committee will remember that, in Clause 4 (2,a) and (b), we defined the circumstances in which loans might be given in the case of grouping schemes and non-groups. In considering the debates on these matters in Committee and observing Amendment No. 2 in the names of Members of the Opposition, we considered that it would be right to extend the circumstances in which loans might be made in the case of non-groups. We would achieve this by Amendment No. 1.
I should make it clear, however, that we have in mind merely minor structures and works. We are thinking, for example, of the provision of a new crane, which might involve laying a new track, which would be a structure or a work, and we are also thinking that structural work may be necessary, for example, to modernise an existing quay or fitting-out yard.
If the Amendment is carried, the object of Amendment No. 2 would be achieved in law and it would be possible for loans to be made in the circumstances described. I should make it clear that it is not likely that the power would be used in that way. I do not want to comment any further on that without hearing the Opposition's argument for Amendment No. 2, but I suggest that, as their

case is met in law, they might not want to press the Government on their intentions. If they do, it might be better if they move the Amendment.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: In the circumstances, I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 14——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House can take only one Amendment at once. The hon. Gentleman may, however, speak about his Amendment.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I do not think that it is necessary, in any case, for me to move my Amendment, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. It is clear that it went some towards meeting our point, although I am not sure that he has the same circumstances in mind.
We have in mind—I think that this is the feeling in the industry, too—that, whereas, in Japan, about 60 per cent. of the tonnage is built in building dry docks, that is not the case here. Indeed, they hardly exist. This is because our shipyards were laid out in the past. The most modern of all, the Furness Yard, was constructed only at the end of the First World War, and hon. Members may have noticed that its financial results have not been particularly good. It might be necessary for us to move forward to some of the new conceptions, and it would be a pity if the loan money were not available for that.
Hon. Members may have noticed that a recent report of Charles Clore, Seers Holdings, said that no less than £6½ million was provided in the accounts for losses in the Furness Yard, of which no less than £3½ million was for contracts which had not been begun on 31st December last. That is the measure of the problem.
We must note that our foreign competitors have not only laid out completely new yards—partly, it is true, because of war bombing—but also that they have gone in for building docks, which are very useful for the construction of the giant tankers and very large ore carriers to which we are becoming accustomed.
Although it may be difficult, in any of the mergers envisaged under the Bill, for such total reconstruction to take place, in


the case of a merger of two or three yards, it might be necessary to have fairly complete reconstruction of one or two and to include this new form of building docks, which is in many ways superior to a slipway.
I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary can go a little further and tell us that this would be covered by his Amendment, as we thought, at first sight, that it was.

Dame Irene Ward: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). The Parliamentary Secretary did not give a wide enough definition. His example of what would be included under his Amendment was restricted. I wonder whether he could respond to my hon. Friend's case, to take the discussion into a much wider aspect of the problem. I hope that the Government's Amendment is not restricted to the extent that it appears to be. The hon. Gentleman's explanation covered only a small part of what we have in mind. I hope that he will go much further, as his point was not particularly expensive.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). I hope that the Minister will deal with this point, which was covered at length in the Geddes Report.
It was admitted in Standing Committee that the building of ships here is largely out of date, compared with that of our principal competitors in Sweden and Japan. Slipway building is not as efficient as the building in new docks. Many of our yards, including Harland and Wolff, in my constituency, want such a dock. There are no such docks at Harland and Wolff and the managing director and the chairman have both said recently the addition of such a building dock would greatly increase the yard's competitiveness. As this is the biggest yard in the country, some attention should be paid to the view expressed by Dr. Denis Rebbeck and Mr. J. Mallabar.
I therefore hope that the Minister will say that "structures, works" is a wide enough phrase to cover this point.

Mr. Dell: As I said, in law the words "structures, works" probably cover

what hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. I thought it right to make it clear that it was not at present the intention of the Government to spend on such projects as hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind the large sums of money which would be involved. If this were done, a major part of the loan provision under the Clause might go in such projects.
The building of a big building dock could cost £15 million. It might be less, but it would be a substantial sum and we think it inadvisable and inconsistent with the recommendations of the Geddes Report that money should be spent in this way. The House will remember that paragraph 558 of that Report recommended that loans for all capital projects for ungrouped yards should not exceed £2 million. I specifically mention "ungrouped yards" because the effect of the Opposition Amendment would merely be to extend the possibility of making loans in respect of ungrouped yards. But the provision is already drafted in such wide terms that, in law, their intention is covered.
However, the main object in providing these loans, in the view of the Government, in pursuance of the Geddes recommendations, is to assist in the restructuring of the industry. It is for this purpose that we expect the money to be used, rather than for the building of large building docks of the type recommended in the Opposition Amendment.
I also draw attention to the fact that the Geddes Committee considered the sort of propositions hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. It considered whether it would be advisable to build such docks and it was very cautious indeed in its response to this idea. The Committee looked at the likely profitability of the sort of ships that would be built in such docks and at the likely market for those ships and it came to the conclusion that the market was not likely to justify the expenditure.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even since Geddes looked into this matter there has been a tremendous development in the building of large tankers? Is he aware that even during the last 18 months, since the Committee examined the matter, the position has considerably altered?

Mr. Dell: I agree that there have been many changes, of which that is one. Nevertheless, the question whether this part of the market is likely to be profitable—and produce a return on the sort of capital that would be likely to be expended on such a dock of this kind—is open. Geddes did not say that this should not be done, but that the matter would have to be looked at carefully before it was done and that a real assessment of the position would have to be made first of all.
One can build quite a small, sophisticated ship and its value and likely profit can be greater than for one of these large tankers. There is here a question of commercial judgment and our view is that a judgment cannot be made yet about whether or not this would be the right course. Even if one disagrees with Geddes on this matter, the fact remains that under the Clause we have £32½ million of loan money, only part of which will go to non-groups. The Opposition is proposing what might be very large expenditures indeed, amounting to such a proportion of that £32½ million that the real purpose of the loan money—the restructuring of the industry—would not be achieved.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does that mean that the Government and the Shipbuilding Industry Board will try to deflect firms which want to do this with the money they raise themselves?

Mr. Dell: By no means. If a firm makes its own commercial judgment as to the profitability of this sort of expenditure, that is up to that firm. We are envisaging circumstances in which it would be advisable for the loan money from the Government to be used under Clause 4, and I have been explaining the intentions of the Government.
If one considers what the law will be if the Government Amendment is accepted, then in all probability the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be covered. In the light of this explanation, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press their Amendment.

Mr. McMaster: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he make the position absolutely clear? He said that it was the intention of the Government that,

because of the amount of money available, it would not be adequate for such a building dock. Is it the intention of the Government to issue a direction to the Board that it should not use this money for this purpose? After all, building docks are extremely useful and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. An intervention after the Minister has sat down must be an intervention and not a second speech.

Mr. McMaster: Would the Parliamentary Secretary make it clear that the Government do not intend to issue such an instruction to the Board?

Mr. Dell: It would not be necessary in this respect for such a direction to be issued because, under subsection (5), any loan requires the approval of the Minister. The Minister would, therefore, have the final say in respect of such a proposal made by the Board and, in this case, I think that the Minister would have to be very powerfully persuaded.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dell: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 22, to leave out from 'that' to 'and' in line 25 and to insert:
'the person carrying on that undertaking—

(i) is putting into effect a reorganisation of the resources used by him for the purpose of carrying on that undertaking; or
(ii) has since the date of the commencement of this Act put into effect such a reorganisation as aforesaid (including a reorganisation begun but not completed before that date)'.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, at the same time.

Mr. Dell: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
In our usual, helpful way, these three Amendments show that the Government have taken account of the sense of the discussion in Committee, when concern was expressed as to the width of the circumstances under which loans under Clause 4, or guarantees under Clause 7, might be given, in respect of the date on which a reorganisation scheme might have been commenced.
Some hon. Members were concerned that schemes of reorganisation might be ruled out if the effective date was the date of the passage of the Measure.


We explained in Committee that this was not likely to happen, that reorganisation was a continuing business and that continuing reorganisation schemes would benefit, even if they had begun before the coming into operation of the Bill. To place the matter beyond doubt, and so that hon. Members and noble Lords in another place might be persuaded of this fact, we have tabled these Amendments, the effective words in Amendment No. 3 being:
… (including a reorganisation begun but not completed before that date)".
The same arguments apply in respect of Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

Mr. David Price: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for tabling this Amendment and I hope that the House will accept it. I realise the difficulties every Government have with this sort of Bill in drawing the line for a starting point—there are always hard luck cases going further back in time. The Government Amendment goes some way to meeting some of the anxieties of the industry without, I hope—seeing on the Treasury Bench the Chief Secretary—giving an open-ended commitment for the taxpayer as regards the past.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(GUARANTEES IN CONNECTION WITH LOANS FOR SHIPBUILDING.)

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 24, to leave out from the third "the" to "any" in line 25 and to insert "payment by".
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would be convenient for this Amendment and Amendment No. 6 to be considered together, as they hang together.

Mr. Speaker: They will be grouped together.

Mr. Diamond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Clause 7 at present enables the Minister to guarantee the repayment of loans in respect of orders placed by British owners with British shipbuilders, and the effect of these two Amendments is to enable him to guarantee the payment of all money due for the financing of such

orders whether the liability arises under a loan agreement or otherwise. Perhaps I could therefore explain why it is necessary to have this alteration in the wording. The explanation will, at the same time, afford me an opportunity to give some information for which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) asked in Committee.
At the request of the Government the London clearing and Scottish banks have agreed to provide finance for United Kingdom shipowners' shipbuilding contracts with British yards, within the limits set by the Clause, against Government guarantees for the full amount of each loan and of interest on it. The rate of interest payable on these loans will be a fixed rate of 5½ per cent. per annum payable half-yearly. This rate will be subject to review at the same time as the corresponding rate of interest under the export financing arrangements.
A commitment Commission of 1 per cent. on the amount of each loan contract will be payable by the shipowner when the contract is made. Loans will be repayable by equal half-yearly instalments, normally over a maximum period of eight years. The promissory notes which will be held by the banks under these arrangements will be refinanceable at the Bank of England—subject to prior discussion with the Bank of England in any case where recourse to financing is sought; they will not be marketable, but will be negotiable among the banks participating in the scheme.
It will be for the Government, of course, to decide what contracts shall be eligible for credit under these arrangements and for the associated guarantees. As the House knows, the Bill provides power to the Minister to guarantee loans up to a total of £200 million, and the Minister has arranged for the Ship Mortgage Finance Co. Ltd. to act on his behalf in assessing the creditworthiness of buyers and in advising on the necessary documentation on which guarantees will be issued.
I should like to say that the Government are grateful to the banks for agreeing to co-operate in these arrangements. The banks regard their primary lending functions as being to meet the normal requirements of industry and commerce


for short-term finance and do not want their capacity to discharge that function to be inhibited by too great a volume of longer-term commitments. For this reason, the Government did not lightly ask them to undertake such a considerable volume of additional lending for a relatively long term and at a rate of interest which would not vary with changes in short-term rates, even though the credit was to be fully guaranteed by the Government. Indeed, the Government would not have made this request had it not been for the exceptional nature both of the position and problems of the shipbuilding industry, with which the House is familiar. It is with the knowledge that the situation and the request are alike exceptional that the banks have responded to the Government's request.
From a layman's point of view, the essence of the transactions I have been describing is that we have a bank lending money. From a layman's point of view, a loan is a loan, but under the arrangements which I have described one can contemplate one of three sets of circumstances: either a plain loan, or a loan with promissory notes issued as collateral security, or a financial transaction which consists of cash being issued, on the one hand, and a promissory note issued on the other, and therefore regarded in legal terms, not as a loan but as the purchase of promissory notes. As any one of these three arrangements might be made by the bank in the case of a particular loan it is necessary to widen the terms of the Clause, as these Amendments jointly do, in order to permit that facility which, I hope, will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. David Price: These Amendments are entirely agreeable to this side of the House. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for his kindness in letting me know what was involved in all this, and I am sure that his explanation will have put over to the House the reasons for the Amendments.
The right hon. Gentleman made the very proper point that it is one thing for the. Government to ask the banks to cooperate in short-term financing but as most of the joint stock banks tend to be in the short-term lending business, one cannot ask them to co-operate with the

Government in providing such loans over too long a time scale. This raises the point we were able to discuss in the Standing Committee—when some of us were possibly considered to be pessimists—that it might be necessary to have a credit scheme for rather longer than we may now anticipate. I said in Committee that as long as our creditors run credit schemes it is very difficult for us not to do so, and that is the real justification for the Clause.
That being so, the problem relates— and I would not pretend for a moment to know the solution—to the long-term future. The Government have left the position flexible, but I am sure that they are right in not asking the banks to commit themselves over too long a period. I join with the Chief Secretary in thanking the banks for having been prepared to commit themselves for as long a term as they have.
I am also very pleased that the Government have tied their arrangements with the banks for shipbuilding schemes to the general arrangements that successive Governments have had with the banks for the general support of export finance. It would be wrong to deal with the shipbuilding credit on different rates and terms from those with which we deal with the general support of exports.
An important point, with which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, is this. When any Government, of whatever party, ask the banks for special arrangements for something that is identified as being of national interest, we want stability for interest rates so that industry can know exactly the terms on which it can get money. If those rates are very preferential against the going rate on the market, there is a hidden subsidy which is not in this case carried by the taxpayer in the Consolidated Fund but by the commercial banks. In so doing, the commercial banks are withdrawing a bit of their total funds of cash available to the generality of British industry and trade. The House should remember this. That is why we are so grateful to the banks. But the Chief Secretary will agree that for the Government to ask this of the banks, and for the banks to respond, we must use this good will from the banks sparingly. If we did so on a large scale we could be reducing and prejudicing


the flow of funds into the generality of commerce and industry to its detriment.
I thank the Chief Secretary for the way in which he introduced the Amendment, and I commend it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 6, in page 4, line 28, leave out' for the purpose of' and insert:
'of any sum payable by that person in respect of principal or interest under arrangements (whether by way of loan or otherwise) entered into by that person for the purpose of financing'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 40, after 'since', insert 'the date of'.

No. 9, in page 4, line 42, after 'undertaking', insert:
'(including a reorganisation begun but not completed before that date)'.—[Mr. Diamond.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 11, at the end to insert:
(c) that any reorganisation agreed or proposed includes a formal agreement with representatives of the workpeople concerned, to promote higher productivity, to remove obstacles to increased efficiency and to ensure continuing consultation between management and workpeople.
The object of this Amendment is to follow up a discussion we had in Committee on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). The wording of his Amendment did not commend itself to the Committee, but I gained the impression that the spirit of what he was trying to get at received a certain agreement in principle in the Committee. It is simply that the shipbuilding industry is an industry which has had a very hard history in human terms and it is also an assembly industry. Therefore, if this Bill is to succeed and if the sort of groupings we are aiming at are to be successful, it is essential to have the good will and co-operation of those working in the industry. This is common ground.
In Clause 7 we are dealing with the criteria that will be open to the Shipbuilding Industry Board in recommending to the Minister that he should give his guarantee and warranty for a credit. I am sure the whole House will agree that

firms which do not receive that guarantee will be in a very difficult competitive position—I do not say an impossible position, but an extremely difficult one—against firms which get the support of the S.I.B. and of the Minister. In this Clause we have two major criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford proposed to add a third dealing with staff relations and reorganisation as they affect those working in the yards. His Amendment did not commend itself because it referred to the trade unions and, as the Parliamentary Secretary said when commenting on the proposal, it raised issues which, as the Geddes Report pointed out, were far wider.
The Amendment I am moving will, I hope, meet the spirit of the discussion which I detected as being the l.c.m. of the Committee without falling into errors of draftmanship and raising the wider and more controversial issues which were in my hon. Friend's Amendment. I should have thought the House would agree that nowadays in our desire to increase productivity it is important to have formal agreements between staff and workpeople in the yard.
My Amendment does not raise the question of trade unions. We had an interesting discussion about whether more trade unions would emerge in the industry or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) pointed out that although they may have merged there was still the question of trades within the trade unions.
The phrase in the Amendment,
to remove obstacles to increased efficiency
deals with the problem of old established practices which in human terms may have sound reasons but which events have gone beyond. Then the Amendment refers to ensuring
continuing consultation between management and workpeople.
I am sure the Minister will agree that continuing consultation is of the essence of this matter. I am also sure that the House will agree that this must be both on the formal and informal levels. Seeing the Minister present on the Front Bench, I do not think that I need give further explanation.
It is clear from a reading of the Geddes Report and from mv limited ex-


perience of the industry that the biggest obstacle to progress is not scientific or even financial, but human. Conversely, if we get human relations right we can get remarkable results from limited resources. This is the essence of the problem facing the British shipbuilding industry. My motive in moving this Amendment is that I do not believe it sufficient to get the groupings and finance right unless we get the human relations right.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) for moving this Amendment and for the way in which he moved it. One of the difficulties which my hon. Friend and I have had during the passage of this Bill has been the attractive character of Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite. When attractive Amendments are attractively presented it is doubly difficult for a Minister to resist them, but in this case I ask the House not to put this provision in the Bill.
I ask that, not because I think the spirit behind the Amendment is not good—I think it is good—but because the hon. Member answers the Amendment in the latter part of his speech. He was quite right in saying that human relations in this industry will be of critical importance if the Geddes reorganisation is to succeed and if the industry is to have a long-term future. But to make statutory provisions for good human relations as incorporated in an Amendment of this kind would create real difficulties. I shall not make anything of the point which occurred to me that in earlier stages the hon. Member sought to remove some conditions and now he wishes to insert other conditions.
The difference is that the other conditions put on the Board the necessity to take into consideration certain things whereas in this case there would be no discretion left to the Board at all. The phrase, "a formal agreement" is very rigid. I can envisage a case where the unions and the management were in a state of great excitement over a new group and discussing productiviity arrangements and all the things covered by the Amendment and, because nothing had been written in the formal agreement, the: S.I.B. would be precluded from providing the credit arrangements which a group needed to get its orders. There is a

serious danger here that, with the best will in the world, the Amendment, were it put into the Bill, would be too rigid. It might actually delay certain things we would all like to see done and it might be counter-productive, to use the current jargon.
If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I am certainly very happy to make a declaration, as it were, that the spirit of the Amendment will be very much in the mind of the Board as it approaches the task which the House is shortly to lay upon it. When I say "the spirit of the Amendment", I mean both in its positive and its negative senses. Negatively, if there is no response on this matter of relations between management and workers—or "workpeople", to use the phrase incorporated in the Amendment—clearly this would be a factor disinclining the Board to take the view that the proposed reorganisation was likely to be effective. More positively, the Board will be looking for, and seeking to encourage in every way possible, the considerations incorporated in the Amendment.
If this can constitute a Ministerial declaration in lieu of a statutory addition to the Bill, I am very happy to give it. I am sure that I carry the Board with me in doing it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity for saying how the Board and my Department regard this problem.

Dame Irene Ward: I find the Minister's answer to the Amendment both disappointing and encouraging. It is difficult to know from what he said on which side to come down. On reading the Amendment, having for many years as a Geordie moved in and out of many shipyards, I regarded it as very satisfactory, because it is tremendously important in the creation of human relationships in industry for those engaged at all levels in industry to feel that it has been possible in a Bill to arrive at a form of words which states in formal terms the best of what those concerned in the industry want.
In a way, this is perhaps an old move to try to get into a Bill a relationship which could revolutionise the productivity and the interest of those concerned on both sides of the industry. Those who have been in the House for any length of time will agree that any new development


is always difficult. As we all know what we want, as both sides of the House are agreed on it, and as it applies to all sections of industry, it is devastating to learn that it is impossible to find words which will not create difficulties. I regard it as fantastic that when we are entering upon a new era, particularly after the Geddes Report and after the introduction of the Bill, which has been so well received on both sides of the House, words cannot be found to interpret in the Bill the spirit of the Amendment. Those engaged in the industry on Tyneside to whom I have spoken would be delighted if we could write into the Bill an acceptable form of words embodying the spirit of the Amendment.
7.45 p.m.
It would be of inestimable value in the creation of more modern relationships if we could arrive at a form of words which one could point to as being the agreement of both sides of the House. With the best will in the world, it will not be nearly as easy to explain a Ministerial declaration. The people in my part of the world are of a suspicious nature. Declarations are not regarded in exactly the same way as words which can be read. I am disappointed at the period which has elapsed between Committee and Report stages. I hope that the Amendment has been on the Notice Paper for some time. With skill, especially in view of the support the Minister has given to the spirit of the Amendment, I should have thought that a form of words could have been devised to create a movement forward in this new era of co-operation in the industry.
As the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept the Amendment in its present terms, we shall not be able to get it into the Bill. I am not all that keen on Ministerial declarations of intent. I suppose that I am, coming from my part of the world, a bit suspicious. However, we have brains in this country. It is ridiculous that we should be unable to find an appropriate form of words. I press the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Board. I should hate the Board to be restricted in any way. Those on the Board will be just as keen as everybody else to put the spirit of the Amendment into operation.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult all these great brains and not let it be said that on a matter such as this we cannot find proper words to embody the spirit of the Amendment. It is important that we give encouragement and inspiration to those in the industry who are trying to make a go of it. They must make a go of it, in view of the rather devastating state of the industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to find an appropriate form of words so that in another place a declaration of intent can be transformed into statutory reality.

Mr. McMaster: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), I was sorry to hear the Minister refuse to accept the Amendment. One of the great difficulties which have faced our shipyards in their attempt to remain competitive as an international industry has been the number of trade unions involved in our shipyards. There are seventeen or eighteen trade unions represented in each of our yards. There have been some notable examples of getting together, particular in the metal working trades. The boilermakers and the shipwrights have recently got together, and their amalgamation is most encouraging for the industry as a whole. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) said, there are still many trades and many problems arising from demarcation between trades. I am sure, therefore, that action by the Minister to encourage the trade unions to get round these obstacles, obstacles arising from demarcation and other restrictive practices, would help the industry to become competitive.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. The Geddes Committee went to some length in considering this problem. It is not too much to ask the Government to go further than the Minister has. I was glad to hear his declaration encouraging trade unionists to get together, but it must be remembered that very few trade unionists will read the report of this debate. What they will refer to is the Bill itself. It ought to be possible to incorporate words—perhaps leaving out the expression "formal agreement" if that has particular significance—drafting a provision so as to encourage the trade unions, which have al-


ready shown themselves to be co-operative, to be more co-operative.
In the industries with which our shipbuilding industry competes, for example, in Scandinavia, Germany and the Far East, there is only one union per industry to negotiate with the management, when a dispute arises here, on the other hand, we often find several unions involved. Sometimes, the management itself is not involved, but there is a dispute among the trade unions themselves. This slows down work in the yard and tends to make the British industry even less competitive because it is more difficult for us to meet the prices and delivery dates quoted by our competitors.
Will the Minister go a little further than his declaration, therefore, and say that he is really behind the purpose of the Amendment? Even at this late stage, will he consider whether there is another step he can take to deal with this aspect of the problem and help to make our industry competitive? He would give much more satisfaction if he did.

Mr. William Small: The intention of the Amendment is good, it is an expression of every good will, but it would be quite impracticable. There were distress signals out for our shipbuilding industry, as we all know, and then we had Geddes. One remarkable feature was the acceptance of Geddes by the workpeople; they were the first to welcome the Report. They made their arrangements known in April or May, immediately following the Report. We now have a new atmosphere in the shipbuilding industry. Everyone feels an identity of interest in wishing to salvage the industry out of its difficulties. To that end, the Government have brought in the Bill.
But let us look at what is going on now in terms of reorganisation, reorganisation being the operative word. There may be one yard with excellent labour relations. I can quote the example of Yarrow's in Scotstoun, where the shop stewards actually called a Press conference to express a vote of confidence in their own management. If we make things restrictive and embody the intention of the Amendment in the Bill, there will have to be agreement with workpeople in other yards. This is difficult enough now. On the Clyde, for example, we

have what we know as "Y.C. & S.", Yarrow, Connell and Stephens. Then the principle is extended to include Fairfield's and Brown's. It will be necessary to take this broader mass of trade unionists along in negotiation.
On the Clyde, they got through the Prices and Incomes Board with the Clyde agreement—that is actually agreed now—and it has been accepted as a generality throughout Britain's shipbuilding yards that the workpeople would relax working practices. The initiation of such developments would be made more difficult if we put an added restrictive burden on those who are ready to reorganise and reconstruct.
It is simpler to have a declaration of intent from the Minister, leaving the thing where it is in the present atmosphere of general acceptance of a desire to salvage the industry. However long the life of the Shipbuilding Industry Board may be—the Opposition want to extend it for another year—it would be much better to have this left on a voluntary basis, without prejudice to the negotiations which will take place with the management on mergers, rather than adopt the restriction of a unanimity rule. This is what we should be asking for if we incorporated the Amendment in the Bill, and one particular leader might not be prepared to give way in the trade unions, on the works councils, or whatever it might be.

Mr. Benn: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?
The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) spoke movingly and urged me many times to follow her advice. The Ministerial declaration is not, perhaps, as meaningless as it may seem to her at first sight. Under the terms of the Bill, the Minister will have to approve all these things. Therefore, when I said what I did in answering the Amendment, I was giving some public indication of the way in which a Minister would look at this matter. I have no reason to doubt that the S.I.B. would look at it as well before the question came to me, but my declaration has a little more meaning in that the action is Ministerial action in the end. The Minister gives the guarantee in this case, and I suggest that the Board does not need a statutory provision.
My real anxiety is this. We all want a new spirit, but I doubt that the new spirit will spread as much as it should if it is confined in a statutory bottle. My fear is that, if we have a statutory bottle for the new spirit, there may well be circumstances in which harm will be done to what hon. Members have in mind. There are all sorts of practical difficulties.
On the question of publicity, I am much taken by what the hon. Lady said, but I can only say that not many people read Acts of Parliament. I do not know how many Acts of Parliament circulate in the pubs and clubs of the North-East, but, to the best of my knowledge, I have never seen an Act of Parliament anywhere except in the House of Commons, save, of course, in the offices of those who are concerned from a legal point of view. I am sure that Acts of Parliament are less read even than HANSARD, which is a shame when one remembers how much work goes into them.
The hon. Lady spoke of the impact which what has been said in the House would have on people working in the shipyards. The pamphlet, "A Fresh Start in Ship Building", of which 100,000 copies were printed and circulated, deals very fully with better industrial relations, and I am not sure that that does not mean rather more than acceptance of an Amendment in the Bill.
I hope that the House will feel that there is no division of opinion in what we seek to achieve but will, for the reasons I have given, accept that a statutory provision for a formal agreement in each case, might actually harm the purpose which hon. Members have in mind.

Mr. David Price: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but, before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I put this point to him. I am sure that most of us entirely agree with the spirit of what he and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) said, that these things are better done informally. Nevertheless, I believe that we have reached a stage in several industries at which one needs a formal agreement as a minimum. I have for years preached the same doctrine as the right hon. Gentleman has enunciated, but, over the years, I have begun to have my doubts.
8.0 p.m.
I take an example from a sphere closely related to this, in which the same argument arises, namely, racial discrimination. All of us present tonight would agree that one cannot make people of different races like each other by passing laws. At the same time, I suspect that most of us would also agree that it is necessary to have minimum statutory safeguards against gross racial discrimination. With great respect to the experience of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun I believe that in an industry with as long a history of indifferent industrial relations, and sometimes of sheer hard times for owners, managers and workpeople alike, it is necessary to formalise part at least of what is agreed informally. I have always said that what is agreed informally at the yard level is more than what is formalised. I believe that the Amendment, by introducing formal agreements, will assist shop stewards, members of trade unions, members of workers' committees, managers, directors or whoever has to put over to the doubters amongst the people concerned that change really makes sense and is fair.
I have seen this in my own experience in the heavy chemical industry, as has the Parliamentary Secretary. As an old work study man with a stop-watch, I know that my task was made easier by the fact that my masters and the leaders of the trade unions affected in the plant in which I was working had made a formal agreement about how we operated work study and that arrangements had been made and formalised about redundancy. We were jolly certain that in practice there would be no redundancy, because we were an expanding industry. But the agreement was there as a formal safeguard. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government, as I do to my colleagues, based on substantial experience in these matters, that although we want the voluntary spirit I believe that we can promote a better voluntary spirit if there is, in cricket terms, the long-stop of formal arrangements.
With those final thoughts I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dell: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 15 to leave out from 'agreement' to the end of line 16 and insert:
'or agreements relating to the giving of the guarantee'.
I foreshadowed the Amendment in Committee. Subsection (4) requires Treasury approval of the terms of any guarantee and makes it clear that the Minister is to be entitled to make a charge for giving a guarantee. It assumes, however, that all the provisions relating to the guarantee, including any provision for a fee for giving it, will be in one agreement—
… the agreement under which the guarantee is given
—to quote the Bill.
In practice, this will not be so. The guarantee will be contained in an agreement between the Minister and the bank, and the provision of a fee, which may be known as a premium, and other provisions imposing obligations on the purchaser towards the Minister will be contained in a separate agreement between the Minister and the purchaser. Accordingly, the Amendment provides that the terms and conditions are to be prescribed in the agreement or agreements relating to the giving of the guarantee rather than in the agreement under which the guarantee is given.

Mr. Price: The House is grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that explanation of a technical Amendment. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(DISSOLUTION OF BOARD.)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 25, to leave out '1971' and insert '1972'.
As the Bill stands, the Shipbuilding Industry Board will come to an end at the end of 1970, and the Minister has power to prolong it for one year. The object of the Amendment is to give him power to prolong it for a second year. That does not mean that we hope that this will happen, but we think that it is, possible that it may be necessary and we realise that it might be difficult for him to return here for the power to do

so. We therefore think it more prudent to put this into the Bill.
As I have said before, we believe that conditions have changed since Geddes reported, and I regret to say that I think that they have changed for the worse in several respects. I wish to quote three cases, starting with freight rates. They normally tend to rise at the end of the year, but last year they continued their decline and they have done so up to the present moment. Today's Fairplay International Shipping Journal says, under the heading, "Tankers Might Spark Off Freight War":
Dry-cargo tramp shipowners fear that the large number of tankers now becoming redundant in the seasonally depressed oil market will spark off a freight trade war in the major grain trades.
There is no doubt that there is a little anxiety in the freight market, and when freight rates are low in this industry people order fewer ships. Perhaps the tragedy of the industry in the past is that there have been these ups and downs.
Secondly, we have had a number of company reports recently, and they have not been very satisfactory. Speaking to an earlier Amendment, I mentioned the case of the Furness shipbuilding yard which, although the most modern in the country of the bigger yards, is having to make provision for no less than £6½ million of losses in the current year.
Thirdly, there is the case of the order book, which is disappointing. It is perhaps significant that that does not apply only to this country. Even in Japan shipbuilders are viewing with some alarm the decline in orders. In the first quarter of this year 34 ships were ordered of a gross tonnage of 131,000 tons, compared with 43 ships of 143,000 tons in the first quarter of 1966. The total order book now stands at not very much more than 2,000 million tons.
We get very much the same story when we look at the history of the launches. British shipbuilding has sunk to fourth place in the league with just over 1 million tons launched, against the rather staggering figure, admittedly rather boosted by tankers and so on, of 6,685,000 gross registered tons in Japan. I think that all those factors point to a rather longer and tougher job for the S.I.B. than we should like to see and than we had hoped. I therefore suggest that it


might be prudent to make it possible for it to continue if necessary to make its full term 4½ years. But I repeat that I hope that that will not be necessary.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am not sure that the points made by the hon. Member are in favour of the Amendment. In some respects one would suggest that his anxiety, which many of us might share, would suggest that the vital necessity for even more rapid attention to the problems of the industry and the kind of action which is recommended in the terms of the Bill, and more speedy action by the Board than might otherwise have been thought to be required.
Whilst I see the need for a continuing period for very careful examination of the industry, I think that sometime before the end of the time provided for in the Bill, we shall need to decide what further action, if any, is required. It may be a very different kind of action and a different kind of Board of Inquiry.
I therefore feel that the Board is not the right body for that very specific type of urgent and rapid job, and that should anything further be necessary it may need to be something quite fresh after we have had experience of the next two or three years.
On that basis, I tend to feel that, while I appreciate the problems we are facing in the shipbuilding areas, the Board should have a definite date of termination and that the date in the Bill is probably as good as any.

Dame Irene Ward: I support the Amendment. I believe that the time specified in the Bill is too short. I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that, in view of the anxieties, it is necessary to move with great speed. But, after all, extension of the life of the Board from 1970 to 1971 in any case needs permission from the Government. Presumably, the Board would have to make a case before such an extension was granted. In this Amendment, we merely take time by the forelock and give the Minister power to extend the life of the Board for a further year, to 1972.
I do not wish to be particularly uncomplimentary to the Government. I would be just as uncomplimentary if my

Government were sitting on that Front Bench. What worries me so often about Government is that it takes an enormous length of time to act. We know from the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has stressed it, that, in the final analysis, whatever the agreements made or the recommendations put forward by the Board, the power to agree to loans, etc., rests with his Department.
I have not noticed that the present Government move any more speedily—in fact, I think that they move less speedily—than my Government. It is all very well to talk about the Board and how necessary it is that it should move with speed, and I hope that it will do so. But there is the channel of communication and the length of time that elapses before one can get answers out of Government Departments. This takes so long that it is very alarming. Here we are in the middle of 1967 with a vast programme. We have not really yet had presented to us in detail how the Government and the shipbuilding industry see the future of the industry.
So many factors are now emerging in world affairs that it is difficult for anyone, even with the greatest knowledge, to assess the future. The Bill will not become law until July and there is little time for all the details which have to be arranged in the reorganisation that must be carried out after it becomes law.
I believe that this is a wise Amendment. I know that the hon. Member for South Shields feels that, by not including it, we should put a spur to the Board, but I am not so much concerned with putting a spur to the Board as with ensuring that, in all the discussions that take place, there will be adequate time to deal with all the problems which are bound to arise. The right hon. Gentleman is taking power to extend, if necessary, the Board's operations to 1971. I cannot see why we should not give him power to extend it to 1972 if that is necessary. No one knows what the situation will be. We might have to have a complete reorganisation or change to cover whatever may have happened by 1971. We might, for example, have to have another Geddes Committee. In such circumstances, we would need time for all the considerations which would be put forward and to discuss the position, both current and future.
It is always a good thing to have time in hand. The right hon. Gentleman has been very nice about our Amendments. Now perhaps he might give us one. It is easy to be nice about Amendments and say how wonderfully we are doing, but I like a bit of reciprocity and action sometimes. I like to see some genuine recognition and not just words. I am tired of words. I want a little bit of action and something which will be acceptable to this side of the House, as I am sure it would be acceptable to the industry.
In discussing these matters, there is a feeling, I find, that everything is being rather rushed. This is a new concept and a little more time in hand would be wise to have. I hope that the Minister, on this occasion, will not just say how nice we are, how well we have moved the Amendment and how co-operative and reciprocal we are. I hope that we will get something for our efforts in trying to get the best possible Bill for the benefit of the industry and all who work in it.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that all the desires so ably expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for the industry are echoed on this side of the House and that we are all just as restlessly animated as she is by the desire for the welfare of this great industry. I do not quarrel with the Amendment. We have created the Board for the purpose of helping to bring about a new spirit in the shipbuilding industry and, naturally, the Board having been created for a special purpose, it has been given a date line for its existence.
Obviously, it is in the interests of the industry that it should not be spoon fed too long by the Board. I have no objection in principle to prolonging the potential life of the Board if necessary, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend has all the powers he needs and that he will take whatever exceptional action may be required if he finds 1970 to be too early a date at which to terminate the activities of the Board.
I have reason for my purpose in pointing out another aspect of the Amendment—and not merely the Amendment, but the termination date inserted in the Bill. As a result of the decision taken

overwhelmingly by the House last night, Britain today applied for admission to the Common Market. Under the Treaty of Rome a Bill of this nature will not be allowed to operate. Subsidies and aids——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that subject on this Amendment, which deals with the question whether the Minister should have power to postpone dissolution of the Board from 1971 to 1972.

Mr. Rankin: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely pointing out that, since the Amendment was tabled, a new situation has developed and, therefore, the issue as to whether or not we should prolong the date beyond 1971 is possibly somewhat unreal. The termination date of 1971 may not materialise as a result of our application, and if we are admitted to the Common Market——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but that argument is not relative to the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: All I am saying is that, in the circumstances and in view of what has happened, it seems unnecessary and at this stage unwise even to talk about extending the date to 1972.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness): While we can have considerable sympathy with the motives behind the Amendment and regard the arguments advanced in its support as worthy of consideration, it would not be wise to support the Amendment as it now stands.
It has been pointed out fairly and squarely that the difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry are not only short-term, but likely to be with the industry for many years. If it were to be argued that the Board should last as long as necessary to solve all the problems of the industry, instead of seeking to insert 1972, the Amendment would be seeking to insert 1992.
The problems with which the Board and what will follow it will deal can be divided into short term and long term. The short-term problems are those to which the Geddes Committee addressed its inquiry, the basic structure which our shipbuilding industry requires in order


to win a proper share of the world shipbuilding market. Unless these problems are tackled with the sense of urgency which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said was necessary, the long-term problems will not be solved at all.
Therefore, to gauge the value of the Amendment we ought to consider Clause 9 in conjunction with Clause 11. In Clause 11(5) there is a reference to the Board's job, before its dissolution, of setting up machinery which will carry on the essential consultations which will be necessary to solve not only the continuing, but the changing problems of the industry.
There is no one in the industry who imagines that by 1971 or 1972 we shall be able to set up an industry ideally suited to build any vessel required over the next 50 years. New techniques will come and new vessels will be demanded. Some importance should, therefore, be attached to this provision in Clause 11.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, perhaps in response to the Amendment, will tell us the sort of job which he visualises this new machinery taking over when the Board is wound up. This is a job which will stretch beyond the lifetime of the Board and I think that both sides of the House would feel a little happier as we come to the end of the Report stage if we knew something of the Government's thinking on the continuity of change in the shipbuilding industry which the Government regard as being necessary.

Mr. Benn: On the face of it, of course this is a very attractive Amendment. When the House seeks to press additional powers on a Minister, it is very hard for the Minister to resist. The Amendment says, "We like your Bill so much that we do not want it to stop when you want it to stop; we want it to go on longer". The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) says that she does not like my saying that I like her Amendments. I have been looking for years for an opportunity to be courteous to the hon. Lady, but when I am, all I get is a kick in the teeth. I shall have to say frankly that the Amendment is wholly misconceived, and I shall explain why.
The longer we provide for the S.I.B. to stay in action, the slower the progress of the industry towards change will be. I go further and say that at the moment I have no intention of extending the Board beyond 1970—I am not saying that my view on this might not alter later. There will be three and a half years from enactment to the end of 1970 for the Board to do its job, and it would be a great tragedy and do a grave disservice to the reorganisation of the industry if the industry and the Board thought that they could go on and on because the Minister would go on prolonging the life of the Board so that there was no urgency.
Everything the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said when moving the Amendment about the urgency of the problem led in exactly the opposite direction—we want to put pressure on everybody in the industry and the Board to get on with reorganisation as rapidly as possible. There is also a danger of a statutory Parkinson's Law—that the business of doing what has to be done will fill up the statutory time provided for it.
Moreover, by lengthening the provisions of the Bill, the same amount of money is spread over a longer time. If I agreed that the Bill should go on to 1971 or 1972, that would not increase the amount of grant available, nor increase the amount of loans which could be made available, nor increase the number of credits which could be guaranteed. All that would do would be to lengthen the period during which those measures could be brought into operation. In so far as the Amendment would ease the present pressure which, of course, is not Ministerial pressure but the pressure of events anyway, in certain circumstances that could actually diminish the amount of Government help to the industry in the critical years which lie ahead.

Mr. David Price: I am sure that the whole House would agree with the right hon. Gentleman on everything that he said, were it not for the existence of Clause 7. What has been worrying my hon. Friends and myself most is that the credit scheme is tied to the continued existence of the S.I.B. I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about reorganisation and, of course, the industry


should get a move on. I was attracted by his reference to a statutory Parkinson's Law and I am sure that he is right. However, it is the existence of Clause 7 which is the problem.

Mr. Benn: I shall come to that, but in practical terms the credit scheme and the amount involved are more generous than the House expected when the scheme was published. The hon. Gentleman is rather optimistic if he thinks that it will last for five and a half years without being exhausted. It is much more likely to be used up before that.

Mr. McMaster: Is the £200 million a once-and-for-all sum, or is it to be to the total amount outstanding? I thought that it was to be the total outstanding, so that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said would not be applicable.

Mr. Benn: It is a rotating fund but in any known time-scale it is unlikely that it will meet itself coming round again, if I may put it that way.
8.30 p.m.
The other point is that we are engaged in looking at an industry which has serious problems, requiring urgent action; and an industry in which the Geddes Committee made recommendations and in which we are now trying out new machinery. This new machinery, under the provisions of the Bill as it is worded, will take 3½ years to operate from July of this year; we hope earlier if another place will pass the Bill rapidly, but say from mid-1967 to mid-1970. That is 3½ years. Contained within the Bill is the power of the Minister, me or my successor, to prolong it for one more year that is to 4½ years. Whatever may be said about the short-term problems, the House will almost certainly want to come back before 4½ years, and maybe, before 3½ years, to have another look at this industry in the light of what the situation was and our experience of working with the Shipbuilding Industry Board.
I must resist the attractive invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), to say at the beginning what conclusions I would be likely to draw from the experience of the Board, in order to foresee what recommendations I would make as to how things may be handled in the future. I do not know; no one knows. The S.I.B. is

a very interesting governmental technique. I want it to succeed and I think that it will succeed, particularly if it is kept under pressure, and if the industry and the Board have a time-scale. It is right that, by the time 4½ years have elapsed, we should have another look at the industry. I hope that by then it will be competitive. It is right that Parliament should come back and look at it again specifically.
If the Amendment which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) supports, were to be accepted, we would be into 1972 without another Parliamentary look at the shipbuilding industry, and this is too long. It would extend beyond the next Election and the statutory life of Parliament. It is wrong that we should leave it so long, and I hope that I shall carry the House with me in saying that we should keep up the pressure, so that the Board has an opportunity of tackling the short-term problem, leaving the long term problem to be looked at in the light of the experience of the Board, and the state of the industry.

Dame Irene Ward: At present practically no orders are coming forward at all. If no orders come forward within the next two years, to take advantage of the money that is available, nothing will have happened and it will be all the more important that the scheme goes on, and that the reorganisation provide a stimulus to build. What will happen if no orders come in?

Mr. Benn: With great respect to the hon. Lady, if no orders come in in the next two years, the scheme that I am proposing would not be a very satisfactory way with dealing with what was left of the shipbuilding industry. If the hon. Lady wanted to achieve the effect she says she wants she should have moved an Amendment to say that the Board came to an end at the end of 1969, because this would concentrate the help available in a shorter period. This period would not be practicable, and I hope that on reflection, she will see that this is just about the right balance and that she will not help her cause by allowing this to move from a short-term drastic reorganisation—because it is drastic— into a long to mid-term approach by the Government, to an industry which really needs to move pretty fast.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he thought that the affairs of the industry should come back to the House about 1971 or 1972. There is a lot of force in the argument that he put forward, and in his theory that Parkinson's Law applies to legislation. I agree with everything said by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). Unfortunately I must point out that the mergers are not going as quite as fast as they might do. They have been described in the shipping papers as reluctant marriages. This is because the situation has deteriorated on account of the results of company reports and the lack of orders, in the way that I have indicated. Nevertheless, I can see the logic of the line that the Minister is taking on this. Because of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I beg to move that the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not propose to detain the House long in moving the Third Reading. It seems that this is a Bill that meets most of the requirements of a Third Reading. It was born after very full consideration of the problems in an industry in an important report published just over a year ago. The scheme was warmly welcomed by all sides of the industry and was rapidly accepted by the Government.
I accept criticism of delay, but not in this case. The Government very rapidly welcomed the report. It quickly brought forward a Bill which was sympathetically received by the House on Second Reading, rigorously examined in Committee, expeditiously returned to the House, and promptly dispatched on Report. In fact, so welcome was the Bill that we have had the curious situation, as has been pointed out, that Report stage has been attended by a smaller number of Members than Committee stage, which was not at all the intention of Erskine May in providing for our procedures.
It is a Bill urgently required by the industry, and I do not think I can say more than that in recommending it to the House. However, if I may describe the Bill as a ship which we are launching, I would like to say a word about

the waters into which it will be launched, namely the prospects for the industry. A year ago Geddes was optimistic about the world demand for shipping, but he recognised, and rightly so, that the estimates of world demand were themselves uncertain and that, in any case, figures based upon tonnage alone were not necessarily the best indication of what this would mean in terms of specific orders. In 1965–66 world orders were a record of 18 million tons. In the first quarter of 1967 we had about 4½ million tons, which is maintaining a fairly high pattern of orders. But there is anxiety about the future character, scale and volume of orders, which is obviously felt by the industry. Also, there have been some fairly drastic falls in the proportion of orders which have come to British industry. They went down from 9·6 per cent., in tonnage terms, in 1965 to, I think, 2·7 per cent. in 1966—a very sharp fall. The position in the early part of this year still did not give us much ground for immediate satisfaction.
In addition, as was pointed out by some speakers on Report, the financial position of some shipyards is very serious. Some of the losses which have been reported in recent annual reports which have reflected losses on past orders—not the likely losses on orders which have been more discreetly taken on board more recently—are bound to create in the industry a psychological barrier to action —a sort of paralysis—unless we are very careful. The industry has been more hesitant as a result of the experience of the last few years at a time when it needs to approach the task of reorganisation more urgently.
There will be a big management task for the industry. We have been talking about statutory and financial provisions, but I hope that nobody underestimates the task of management, not only in relation to labour relations but in relation to managing resources, which the industry has to take on board.
The Shipbuilding Industry Board already has working groups working on different possible grouping schemes. We expect their reports to be made soon. The real test will come—and the House and industry should be in no doubt about this—when the working parties have made their reports and the industry is considering whether it is prepared to


accept them. Against the background of a difficult situation, with a not easy financial situation for the firms, this will be the moment when we learn whether Geddes was just a pious hope or the beginning of a new start for the industry.
Some people say—I have heard it said—"Is it worthwhile to engage in this operation in view of all the difficulties facing the industry?". I am not given to declarations of faith, despite what may have been suggested in response to an earlier point which I made. But I have great confidence in the future of this industry if, with the help of the Board and substantial help from the Government, it is prepared to take the plunge. It is not an act of faith alone, because the preparation of the schemes will have been done with great expert care. The conception of the Board has arisen from the Geddes Report and all that has followed and preceded it. The waters, though stormy, should not sink the ship which we are about to launch.
In that spirit, I invite the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: The Bill is of great importance to an industry which, if somewhat localised, was proud to lead the world for a very long time. Those proud traditions die very hard. I have every confidence that the industry can take a new lease of life.
We have discussed some of the adverse factors which have arisen since the Geddes Report. There are other adverse factors in view—for example, the increasing competition from air freight. A few days ago, a seminar on containerisation was told that the volume of air freight was increasing by about 25 per cent a year, and that is just one more factor. At the same time, there are 2,000 ships being built in the world each year, and what we have to ensure is that the British shipbuilding industry is able to retain a reasonable proportion of that quantity.
I agree that the Government have acted promptly in getting the recommendations of the Geddes Committee on to the Statute Book, but it must be remembered that what we find in the Bill which is receiving its Third Reading tonight is not exactly Geddes. There are some pluses and minuses. There is the plus of the

credit scheme, and the Government are to be congratulated on it, although I should have preferred it not to be tied to the life of the S.I.B., but able to go on longer, like the credit schemes of other countries.
Then there are omissions from the Bill. We have discussed trade union development into, it is hoped, five unions in the end. However, that is probably not a topic which would be suitable for inclusion in a Bill. Another omission which is of considerable importance is some preferential rate for heavy plates. That was one of the cornerstones of the Geddes Report and, for a long time, has been a fact of life of the industry. Only during the last few days, we have received Answers from the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Power indicating that it is now intended to reject this help to the industry and, in that rejection, there was a suggestion that the industry had agreed to it in some way.
However, I do not believe that to be the case at all, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at it. After all, the steel industry has now been nationalised, and there can be little argument for not helping it in the national interest when the Minister of Power is in a position to do so.
With the Third Reading of the Bill, we are handing over to the S.I.B. The task is now the Board's. We are all agreed that it has a difficult task to perform in the three and a half years which lie ahead of it. It has the advantage of being small and compact, and it has made a good impression wherever it has been. It has £5 million in grants and £32½ million in loans at its disposal. If that is spent wisely and quickly, I am sure that a great deal can be done, despite the new difficulties of the industry.
I do not wish to end on too pessimistic a note, and I remind the House of some of the opportunities for the industry. We read a great deal about containerisation and the tremendous benefits which it has to offer to transport. The order for the first six special container ships has already gone out, though, unfortunately, only one has come to this country. However, there are new container ships to be built, and they offer a great challenge to our shipyards. In some cases, apart from ships, containers are being built in shipyards. Many containers will be required


all over the world, and that is a further line which United Kingdom shipyards could develop with benefit.
Then there are warships to be built. Unhappily, we have turned down orders for submarines from South Africa only in the last few months. The South African Government have gone to French shipyards instead, and no doubt other South African orders will be lost in the same way as long as the Government are not willing to accept them. It is a great pity that the lost orders cannot be replaced with an acceleration of the naval programme for our own use.
Then there is the replacement of the Liberty ships which is coming up in a big way at present. I am told that, throughout the world, there are no fewer than 10 different types of replacement available for the Liberty ship. There are in this country ships like the SDH Austin and Pickersgill, which, on the face of it, compare favourably with what the German or Japanese yards have to offer. In this replacement of the Liberty ships there is a further opportunity for our shipyards and I hope that this is something which the Shipbuilding Industry Board will not overlook.
It is a pity that the Bill does not do anything about steel, but it enacts the main provisions of Geddes. It has been unable to take account of the latest changes in conditions since Geddes reported, but I wish the Board very good fortune in the task that it has undertaken.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that everyone in the House regards this as a very important Bill. It is a good example of practical Government initiative, which we may find repeated elsewhere. It is a form of development which is exciting in its possibilities. The important thing is to try to keep up this sense of urgency if we are to make progress, and, indeed, if we are to have an industry at all within three or four years' time.
One is to some extent concerned lest the initial interest which was generated when the Geddes Report was first published has waned, and there are some signs that this has happened. I have been a little disturbed at some of the meetings which I have attended, because

there did not seem to be the same kind of fervour of excitement which was exhibited a year of two ago. It is, therefore, of supreme importance that it should be made very clear that there is no reason at all for any further delay. The Bill provides the opportunities which have been demanded from the Government for a long time, and further action must now come jointly from management and the trade unions. There must be no gainsaying this. There must be no excuses for not implementing immediately the projects which have been under discussion for a considerable time.
In the groupings which are to come—we all hope very quickly—we trust that the forward-looking, thrustful managements will come out on top. It will not be easy to ensure that this happens, but I hope that this will be very much to the forefront of the Board's mind in the actions in which it will be involved in the immediate future. Already, I imagine, the Board has a good idea of what it wants to try to achieve in the industry. I hope, therefore, that there will be no delay on the part of owners in placing orders, because the Board will be able to give a good indication of the way its mind is turning. There should, therefore, be no excuse for further delay, particularly as an Amendment has now been made to the Bill to ensure that credit facilities for orders will be available from the date of publication of the Bill.
I hope that everyone on both the management and trade union side will do all that they can to maintain interest and make sure that this potentially exciting and dramatic Bill has the effect which we all very much hope it will.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. McMaster: I am afraid that I cannot share the enthusiasm expressed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for the Bill. I have no doubt that what he says is true and that we shall probably have other Bills of this kind. The longer the Labour Party remains in office the longer trade and industry will get into difficulty and require the bailing out that we find in this Bill. The Bill provides too little assistance for the shipbuilding industry, and it is being given much too late.
I shall not oppose the Bill's Third Reading, any more than I opposed the


Second Reading, because it is better to have half a cake than no cake. As the Minister of Technology said, however, the situation facing the shipbuilding industry has deteriorated quite a lot in the short time since the Geddes Committee reported just over a year ago. Since then the position of both naval and civil shipbuilding has deteriorated. The British share of world orders has fallen, and continues to do so.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is no doubt about the importance of the industry. We are a maritime nation. We need our shipyards, first, for defence and then for trade. Our shipyards have been considerable money earners in the past, both directly, in that we have built boats for the whole world, and also indirecty, in chat we have been the main suppliers to British shipping companies, which have brought in a considerable amount of invisible earnings. The shipbuilding industry has been a vital contributor to our balance of trade, but assistance is needed.
I do not want to weary the House with details at this late stage, but it is accepted that the industry needs help, and the £32½ million made available directly by the Government is not adequate. I was shocked when I heard the Minister say that building docks were not to be included in the assistance provided under Clause 4. The Minister referred to the building of specialised boats, implying that building docks were not required for the smaller boats. I would point out to him that a vessel built on an old-fashioned slipway has to be built at an angle. The more complex the boat the more important it is to build it in dock, where it is flat. Every bit of machinery installed before the boat is launched has to be installed at an angle, and an adjustment has to be made afterwards. It is, therefore, much better—and this is evident from the concentration which the Japanese are giving to the matter—to construct more building docks, and to provide not merely one or two but several per yard, as is done in Japan.
I would have thought that this was one technological innnovation in respect of which the Government would have provided assistance and encouragement. The Government say that they cannot. Why?

This bears out what I said in Committee, that too little is being done to help shipbuilding, and too late.
Great play has been made of the £200 million to be provided by the banks, but in Committee the Minister admitted that he hoped that this would not cost the Government anything. This assistance is provided not by the Government, but by the banks—mainly the joint stock banks, but also, to a lesser extent, the merchant banks, who do not like these long-term commitments.
If the banks are providing it, someone has to pay. Probably their customers will pay slightly higher bank charges to cover the difference in interest rates. If the Minister says that this is not so, presumably there is no subsidy and no difference in interest rates and no advantage from the guarantee. If there is an advantage, the banks will be lending money at less than the market rate.
Up to £200 million will be made available to British shipowners to build in this country and the banks' customers will have to pay the bill—the man in the street and the shareholders—and perhaps bank staff will even have to accept smaller pay increases.
I was also disappointed by the lack of direct encouragement to the trade unions to make the industry efficient. The Geddes Committee paid great attention to this aspect of the problems of the yards. I know from experience in my constituency that the unions have done a great deal over the past years to avoid problems, to settle disputes amicably and to avoid holding up building. The vested interests of the skilled trades in the shipyards are recognised. It is only fair that, if men who have served long apprenticeships to acquire special skills have to give up some of their special advantages, they should be compensated.
Nothing is done in the Bill to cover this. The Minister even refused an Amendment to Clause 7 today which would have helped to extend the provisions with respect to guarantees to shipyards where the trade unions were being co-operative. This is important——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue this, because one cannot refer on Third Reading, as he is aware, to what is not in the Bill.

Mr. McMaster: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and leave that point.
I regret that ship-repairing is mentioned only briefly, although the body which is set up is to cover both shipbuilding and repairing. It would be much more equitable if the repairing yards could share in these advantages.
The long hand of the Common Market is stretching out even this early, when we have made our application only today. You have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we cannot discuss the Common Market. We have applied to join, however, and we passed through this House a Motion requiring the Government to do so. This is bound to affect our yards and the industry.
They will be covered by some of the Articles in the Treaty of Rome and it is a great pity that these matters cannot be discussed here because——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Common Market was discussed for three days. We are now discussing the Third Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.

Mr. McMaster: I agree that it was discussed for three days, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I now want to discuss how it affects the Bill and the industry. I am sorry if I am out of order in doing so, but——

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you ruled the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) out of order on the ground that he could not discuss the Common Market as it applied to shipbuilding on an Amendment. It did not occur to me at the time—I may be absolutely wrong—that it would not be possible to ask for an interpretation on Third Reading. Am I not right in thinking——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When I ruled the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) out of order we were discussing a very narrow Amendment. We are now on Third Reading and the debate that is permissible on Third Reading of a Bill is very strictly confined to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. McMaster: I would not seek to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I conclude by saying that if our appli-

cation to join the E.E.C. is successful, this may be reflected on the needs of the shipbuilding industry. This is another reason why the provisions of this Measure are not up to date and are insufficient.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I suggest that we record our appreciation of the competence and understanding with which my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary conducted the Committee operations of the Bill. We should also record that the hon. Member who led for the Opposition in Committee was extremely helpful and proved worthy of his task.
I wish to consider some of the potential difficulties of the shipbuilding industry, including the carriage of cargoes by ships. The challenge from the air was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and I agree that that challenge exists. However, I do not believe that it will prove as much of a menace as many people think, particularly if we go ahead quickly with the building of container terminals and container ships.
Certainly many avenues which have provided work and cargoes for ships are disappearing. However, other avenues are opening—and, for example, the transportation by ship of motor cars to the Continent is an increasing trade. More and more school children are now being educated by the use of ships. A larger number of pupils than ever before now spend a reasonable part of their school lives being educated aboard ships and also in the sense that they are seeing how other people live in different parts of the world and are meeting children of other countries. That is an expanding trade and is another avenue being opened for the shipbuilding industry.
It has been suggested that the Bill will create a new era for shipbuilding. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that it gives us an opportunity to create a new era, though I would go so far as to say that the new era is before us, if only we can seize the opportunities presented by the Bill.
The Bill means that there must be a reorganisation of the industry, not only between and among the yards, but within the yards, and at all levels. If it means that we have to look at the problem of trade union numbers within the


yards, we must do that, though we know that it will present difficulties. If it means that we must look carefully at the resistance which may be offered to a reduction, if necessary, in the number of yards, we must face that, too. At the same time, we must carry with us in understanding all the people employed in the yards at both floor level and management levels. We must see that those at the top level of mangement who seek the orders necessary to keep the yards going examine their systems of approach for acquiring this new type of business.
During the Committee stage I referred several times to the Fairfield shipbuilding yard in my division. Something new is being done there; not merely at board level but at floor level. When the men understand what the board wants, and when the board is prepared to co-operate with the men in securing what is best for the yard and its continuance as an operating factor in shipbuilding, we get that community of endeavour which results in success.
That was recently shown when Fairfield's got an order for a great new container ship, in the face of world competition, when every other yard in Britain failed. Yards in Britain, in an effort to get such a ship, formed a company specially for that purpose, yet even their united effort failed while that of one Scottish yard succeeded.
The Scottish yard won through because it abandoned a system of quoting for ships which has now become a handicap, and one of the big disadvantages from which shipbuilding is suffering. Although this Measure gives shipbuilding as much aid as Government can be expected to give, unless the firms modernise their approach to the securing of orders the Bill will not operate as successfully as we all want it to operate. The old system of quoting for ships on a cost-plus basis is no longer efficient. British shipbuilding yards must realise that the system of estimating when entering into world competition must be based on cost allied to productivity. That is the system which Fairfields adopted and it is succeeding.
Under that system, with the new type of management and the new spirit in the yards and with this Bill which my right hon. Friend has so successfully conducted to its final stage, British shipbuilding will succeed. Because I trust British ship-

building I believe that, presented with this challenge, it will succeed. This Bill will prove one of the great aids in bringing about the new spirit for success which we all want to see in our own shipyards.

9.11 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: Like everyone else, I welcome the Bill and wish it well.
It is most curious that during the whole of Report stage and Third Reading, we have not had one word about marine engineering, although this is included in the Bill. Whatever the future for British shipbuilding and shipping, there are very grave doubts about the future of British marine engineering. I should like the Minister to deal with this matter, which is important to many of our rivers. On the Tyne, the Wallsend slipway has been closed, and on the Wear George Clarke and Company has closed its marine engineering works.
We have not discussed a controversial subject, but I must mention it because I always like to put the point of view not only of the shipbuilders, but of the men in the industry. They have a feeling, whether rightly or wrongly I could not say, that when the industry gets into operation again as a result of the Bill the tendency may be to import engines from abroad to the detriment of our own marine engineering works. I could not allow the Bill to pass its Third Reading without drawing attention to the fact that the future for marine engineering gives all of us very great cause for anxiety.
I, and I imagine my hon. Friends, do not like the provision which allows for the handing over of equity shares to the Shipbuilding Industry Board. I regard this as a move which could eventually be used for the purpose of nationalisation by the back door. I am not in favour of any more nationalisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) pointed out that we shall not get what we hoped to get—some concessions in regard to steel for the shipbuilding industry. Once the power is put in the hands of the Government, it goes beyond our control. When the Board is broken up, any shares which may be held—I hope there will be very few—will be transferred from the Board to the Minister of Technology. That I view with very great disapproval


and regret. I am glad to be able to put that on record.
I am dealing only with points which have not been covered, because we have had a good debate on all the essentials of the Bill. Can we be told how the shipbuilding areas will fare in view of the Government's determination to reduce defence expenditure? We can have a good home market for shipbuilding only if we can also have some naval ships to be built. I would like an assurance that the Bill will have the benefit of the backing of a considerable number of naval orders and that in the defence reappraisal the shipyards will not be deprived of what was a very attractive part of their livelihood in the past—large naval orders. I should like to be told what we can look forward to during the next three and a half years under the Board. What help will the industry get from the Ministry of Defence by the placing of naval orders?
I know that I cannot discuss the Common Market, but as a supporter of Britain's entering the Common Market I should like to ask for an assurance on this matter, because it is causing great anxiety. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) drew attention to Article 92(3,c) of the Treaty of Rome, which deals with European shipbuilding.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yesterday's debate is over.

Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to debate the matter, but may I not just ask whether, as the Secretary of State did not answer the point made yesterday by my hon. Friend, we could have an occasion in connection with the whole future of the industry when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to describe the application of the Treaty of Rome to it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady may ask that, but not tonight.

Dame Irene Ward: At any rate, I have got it on the record. I am very grateful for that.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A Ruling has been given. I am very worried about it. It seems that the sovereignty of the House is being

affected by the Chair's prohibiting any discussion of the effects of the Common Market and our application to join it on matters we are considering in the House. At the moment, we are considering the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, which could be affected——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman who is trying to advise the Chair on what is in order. On the Third Reading of a Bill one can discuss what is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should know that by now.

Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to deal with this prohibited matter, but would I be in order in saying that the whole of the Bill could collapse? Would I be in order in asking: will the Bill work, or will it not work? Will there be a Bill in operation in two and a half or three years' time, or not? Would I be in order in discussing that?

Mr. Speaker: I will tell the hon. Lady when she goes out of order.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. I will not try your patience too hard.
I just want to put it on the record that for the future of the industry it is tremendously important, this scheme which has the approval of both sides of the House having been devised, that nothing in the outside world should prevent it from being fully made use of and fully implemented. I will not go further, because I could go out of order.
I wish the Bill well, and I hope that, before very long, we shall talk of the future of the industry with greater confidence. We all have grave anxieties. I was glad that the Minister did not skate over the difficulties facing shipping and shipbuilding at present. The state of affairs is really serious, and what we now need is orders. There is the credit of £200 million to be used, but we must have the shipping people to put the orders into the yards. If the situation of the industry as a whole develops adversely, the credit facilities will be useless.
Therefore, although we all welcome the Bill, there are certain aspects of the future which cause us great anxiety. However, this does not detract from my good wishes for the Bill. We all wish it well, and I hope that, before very


long, we shall be able to discuss the affairs of the shipbuilding industry with a sense of greater confidence that its future is assured.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Booth: The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) says that we all welcome the Bill. I should like to feel that that was so, but, if the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) were intended as a welcome, it was one of the sourest welcomes I have ever heard.
The Bill is directed to the problems of an industry in which things change rapidly. Even between the time when the Bill was introduced and its Third Reading tonight, things have happened which bear very much upon whether the Bill will or will not succeed in its purpose. The Bill covers the setting up of a Shipbuilding Council. Even while we were discussing it in Standing Committee, one of the members of the Council withdrew his attendance because of a lockout in the shipbuilding industry. Perhaps one of the happiest auguries for the Bill's success is that, at the next meeting of the Shipbuilding Council, that member, the general secretary of my own union, the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians Association, will return to the Council because the lockout has come to an end.
On Monday, the gates of the shipbuilding industry will be reopened for the first time in nine weeks to all the people it requires to do its job. I hope that those gates will open on an industry in which we are right to declare our faith, a faith not in the industry as it now is but in an industry with the ability to change and to grasp the new world markets which must open up with increasing trade.
It is principally for this reason that I welcome particularly the power which the Government will have under the Bill to take equity shares in the industry. As I see it, the Bill is principally a declaration of the public interest in the industry, and it is appropriate, therefore, that provision should be made for a public equity shareholding. The success or failure of the industry is not just a matter for ship owners and builders or for seamen and the men who work in the yards. It is a matter of concern to the whole British public.
I hope that it is in that spirit that we shall pass the Bill on Third Reading,

praying that it will have the success which it ought to have but which it can have only if we believe in the ability of the industry to change and to take a growing part, the part which it must have, in the expanding markets of the world.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. David Price: The Bill provides an opportunity, and that is all. It does not provide any guarantee of success.
In his criticism of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said that he thought that it was too little. I do not want to go over all the detailed measures in the Bill, but I think that the public moneys being provided in it go to the limit. I do not believe that we are entitled to give more public money at the moment towards the reorganisation. That is why I agree with the Minister on the need for speed.
I hope that before the currency of the Bill, through the efforts of the Government and other Governments, the Minister will be able to ask leave to withdraw the credit scheme because we have persuaded the other Governments of the world to withdraw subsidised credit to their shipbuilders. What we want to see is fair trading terms, and the reason Clause 7 had to be introduced is that that condition has not prevailed. It is on that basis that we on this side of the House support the credit scheme.

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the Japanese offer credit terms 1 per cent. better than we offer, and that as long as that continues the provisions in the Bill can hardly be adequate to enable us to meet that competition from Japan?

Mr. Price: I believe that that modest difference is not really significant. My hon. Friend may be right, but the evidence I have is that there are far more fundamental factors involved. Hon. Members who know the current state of shipbuilding technology better than I do would agree about that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said, we have a background of still declining order books at the moment. According to the figures of 31st March this year, the order book is 22 per cent. down in tonnage compared with the same period in 1966. That does not mean too much,


but it is also 19 per cent. down in value, and that is significant. That is the situation against which we are giving the Bill its Third Reading. The situation has deteriorated since Geddes, and even since Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) drew attention to the marine engine side where, as we said in Committee, the situation is a great deal worse. I hope that in giving the Bill a Third Reading neither we nor the public are under any illusions that the Bill will of itself bring orders to British yards or to British marine engine builders.
A very serious situation faces the industry. But I believe that the Government have broadly produced the right measure, and we have supported it, except for certain matters on Clause 6 and so on about which we disagreed. We therefore wish Sir William Swallow and the Shipbuilding Industry Board the very best of luck. But let nobody be under any illusion—the Bill does not of itself secure the future for British shipbuilding.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Dell: I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) for the manner in which he summed up the debate from his side of the House. I shall return to what he said a little later.
I wish first to deal with some of the matters raised by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred to the question of steel prices. The hon. Member for Dorset, West appeared to consider that it should have been dealt with in the Bill. I do not see how it could have been. Nevertheless, a decision had to be made here in respect of a specific recommendation of the Geddes Committee, and the Government decided that it could not implement that particular recommendation.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I did not mean that it should necessarily have been dealt with in the Bill, but I thought it very disappointing that we should be told just before the Third Reading that it would not be dealt with in any other way either.

Mr. Dell: Nothing was said in the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power gave to a recent Question which had not been said before in the House, both by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and by me in answer to other Questions.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I know that this is hypothetical, but if steel were to be made for ship builders surely the shipbuilding industry should be subsidised rather than that the steel industry should be asked to carry an uneconomic price to one set of customers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting beyond the scope of the Bill. We are on the Third Reading.

Mr. Dell: The position with which the Government were faced was clear. It was impossible for the Government to give directions to the steel industry which would affect the commercial decisions of the industry. The Government therefore had to decide whether to go ahead with the Bill, despite the fact that this condition indicated by the Geddes Committee had not been fulfilled. We consulted the shipbuilding industry and the industry was with us in deciding that, despite the fact that we could not implement that condition, we should go ahead with the Bill. I am not saying that the industry accepted the Government's decision, but it agreed that, despite the Government's inability to implement that recommendation, we should go ahead with the Bill.
I do not think that the industry has any real complaint on that score. It is true that, if the industry goes ahead with the reorganisation which the Bill makes easier for it to achieve, then, in its negotiations with the steel industry, it should be able to provide for itself more satisfactory prices for steel than it has had in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) emphasised something that has been emphasised many times from both sides of the House —the need for urgency and thrustful management in the new groups which are to be formed. I accept all that he said. He is right. Since the Bill was introduced, there have been important and


significant signs of progress. Working groups have been set up and I hope that, in the near future, other working groups will be set up to tackle the problems of merging in other parts of the country. It is a good sign. It is vital that speed should be maintained and that there should not be any failure of decision when the working groups make their reports.
The lack of enthusiasm that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has for the Bill has been known to us throughout, and was repeatedly expressed, despite all the discouragement I could give, in Committee. I prefer to accept the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who said that the Bill was an historic step in the industry. It really is a bit much of the hon. Member for Belfast, East to suggest that the problems of the industry are due to the present Government. Those problems are of very long standing indeed.
The difference is that the present Government established the Geddes Committee and on the basis of its Report the Bill was introduced, and the Bill provides more assistance for the industry in meeting its problems and making itself competitive in world markets than has been given by any previous Government. We accept that the situation in the industry has deteriorated since the Geddes Report and that there is a serious lack of orders. But the lack of orders merely emphasises the urgency of the decisions which the industry has to take, and which it can now take with the assistance of the Board.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. In fairness to the last Government, I should point out that they made £75 million available in assisted credit to shipbuilders—a scheme not equalled in the Bill.

Mr. Dell: The last Government did that to provide an opportunity for the industry to reorganise, but it did not take that opportunity. The difference now is that, not merely are we providing a very much greater sum of credit to support the industry in getting orders from home ship owners, but we are providing financial assistance to it to reorganise, and are giving considerable encouragement to it to reorganise by the means by which

guarantees will be provided in respect of these orders. It should be understood why the situation in the industry has deteriorated and why there is this lack of orders.
There is no lack of world orders for ships. In 1965 and 1966 world orders for ships were at a record rate and in the first quarter of this year that rate continued. It is in this situation, and not in a situation of a shortage of orders, that the British industry has been failing to secure its share. It has been in a situation of boom.
We are faced with the fact that orders for home owners have been going abroad to an enormous extent. Our share of orders placed, not under conditions of subsidy in one's own country, but for registration abroad, has been falling year by year, as the figures show. When we talk of this lack of orders, let us appreciate the background against which it is taking place and let us understand that this lack of orders precisely illustrates the importance of the industry making itself more competitive, and doing so rapidly.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that we should have provided a larger sum in loan money so that shipbuilding docks could be built by shipyards. If shipbuilding docks are to be built by shipyards, it must be remembered that there are other sources of capital, if, in their commercial judgment, that is the right thing to do. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that in future all capital provision for the industry should come from the State. If he is, I must warn him that with that would go the equity option which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth continues to dislike, despite my attempts to dissuade her in Committee.

Mr. McMaster: I thought that I had made this clear. As long as the country faces the type of assistance which other countries give to their industries, there is an obligation on the Government to assist our industry as competitor countries assist theirs.

Mr. Dell: I accept the obligation, and the obligation is being fulfilled, but when I refer to the decline in our share of world orders, I am referring to the decline in our share of orders placed for registration in third countries, and in those countries


the industry's competitiveness enters the question very closely.
I agree entirely with the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Govan on the need for reorganisation of the industry being expressed within the yards as well as in the grouping of the yards. My hon. Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth spoke of the possible incompatibility of the Bill and membership of the E.E.C. I dealt with this matter on Second Reading, and if the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will look up my speech, they will find that I indicated that there was no such incompatability.
The hon. Lady dealt with a matter which clearly arises and which concerns the Government—the state of the marine engineering industry. As I said in Committee, this industry's condition is intimately connected with the fate of shipbuilding generally. The marine engineering industry, as the shipbuilding industry itself, must implement, with the assistance of the Board, the recommendations of the Geddes Report. It must specialise and it must concentrate on units which make a significant number of marine engines each year and can therefore make them competitively.
At the moment, there are too many marine engineering shops which make two or three engines a year and which on that basis cannot possibly be competitive and which, to sustain themselves, have to do a lot of jobbing engineering outside the provision of main engines for the shipbuilding industry.
One can see the future mode in which the marine engineering industry should concentrate, and I hope that it does so rapidly so that it, too, can play its part in ensuring the future of the British shipbuilding industry.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth feared that marine engines might be imported. I do not think that there is any great danger of any great number being imported, but, nevertheless, it is essential that marine engines should be produced competitively in this country, because if they are not and British marine engines have to be used in British ships, that would be a factor which would make the British shipbuilding industry uncompetitive.
I explained in Committee, and I do not think that I need repeat, the relationship that would exist between the guarantees which my right hon. Friend will give in respect of orders for ships placed in this country by home owners and imports of foreign components.
Finally, I come to the words of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), who so excellently summed up the real situation over the Bill. He said that the Bill provided an opportunity, but provided no guarantee of success. I wholeheartedly echo those words. This is an opportunity of which the industry must avail itself, and all the facts go to confirm that it will be no easy task, just as it is a task that cannot be delayed. There are an enormous number of problems in the way. There is the enormous strength of the Japanese industry, there are the foreign subsidies which have been referred to again and again, and there is the increasing competition from air freight to which the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) referred.
These are the difficulties, but in the Bill is an opportunity, and it might be added at this point that the opportunity in this respect is not just an opportunity for the shipbuilding industry. The industry, in a sense, is a front for the engineering industry, and in undertaking the task of being competitive in world markets and in reorganising itself, I hope that the industry will have the support of all those elements of the engineering industry which supply it with so much of the final ship as it eventually sets to sea.
I would be failing in my duty, in ending this debate if I did not pay a final tribute to the work of the Geddes Committee, upon which all our considerations have been based. It has guided us throughout these debates, it has provided a foundation for the Bill. This excellent Report is a landmark in what a Committee can do to assist an industry, when it really has the expertise to understand its problems. May I also wish the Shipbuilding Industry Board and the industry well in the important job of reorganisation which both must undertake together.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — FISHING VESSEL GRANTS BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: As the House knows, we welcome the Bill, which assists in the building up of a modern and efficient fishing fleet, which is particularly important, if and when this country enters the Common Market. Before the Bill finally leaves us, I want to say that the industry as a whole, and certainly the distant water section of it, which I know best, will be pleased when it is able to stand on its own feet, without subsidies. I am sure that this view will be echoed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is only fair to point out, and here I think that the Minister responsible for fisheries will agree with me, that the need for a subsidy lies in reasons beyond the control of the British fishing industry. These are reasons which have been referred to in the previous debate, such as foreign subsidies. Above all, there is the extension of fishery limits, often unilaterally made, which have excluded our own fishing trawlers from many hundreds of square miles of sea, and meant that they have had to give up some of their best traditional grounds.
The Bill helps to subsidise replacement of the fishing fleet. Any company has to have a planned programme of replacement. There are still difficulties in their way, such as competitive tendering and, above all, the scrapping ratios. Whenever these problems have been raised we have been referred to the fisheries review which was announced in November, 1964, and which was due to be completed in 1966— two years later. Three times this year, in fisheries debates, we have continued to press for the review to be completed, and we will continue to do so. We cannot understand why it should take three years to complete.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking during an earlier stage of the Bill, said:
We make no apology for the delay. We know that the results of the review will be well worth waiting for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 980.]

I hope that they will be. But I fear that, like so much Socialist planning, we may find that there is much talk and precious little action.
The Bill removes the upper limits to grants given for building vessels in the fishing industry, but an affirmative Resolution is needed before the subsidies can be increased by 5 per cent. I hope that we can have an assurance that that measure will be introduced as soon as possible.
In commending the Bill for the last time, I should like to say how pleased I am to hear that after the Recess hon. Members on both sides of the House will have the opportunity to visit the Humber ports so that they can see for themselves the fine, modern trawlers which now make up the British fishing fleet.

9.48 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for welcoming the Bill, which does a very useful job. It has been welcomed by everyone concerned. I agree that the industry would be delighted if it were able to stand on its own feet. I hope that that day will come. However, it is amazing that the industry always gets this advice from people claiming more for another industry. I hope that when the fishing industry does without subsidies, others will follow suit.
We cannot discuss the loss of fishing grounds; that is not what the Bill is about. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that steps had to be taken to protect our own fishing grounds for our fleets, and people were grateful for that. These matters work both ways. The scrapping ratio does not come within the Bill either. That was laid down a considerable time ago. It is being examined to see exactly what line we should take.
The review has gone on for some time because this is a complicated industry; do not let us pretend that it is not. We have secured a fairly efficient modern fleet. The hon. Gentleman in his concluding words, said that he was glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be able to visit the Humber ports where there is a most excellent fishing fleet, provided with Government grants. I am sorry that I will not be able to join


them, but I hope that they have a happy outing in the knowledge that tonight we are providing a little more to assist the industry on the road which it has to take.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS)

9.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move,
That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: May I have the assistance of the House? Would it meet with the approval of both sides of the House if we were to take both the Ploughing Grants Schemes at the same time?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Mackie: Hon. Members will recall that in last year's debate I explained to the House that recent advances in methods of managing grassland had reduced the need for the special emphasis on ley fanning provided by the Part I grant. This year we have looked at this grant again, and hon. Members will know that it has been phased down from a maximum of £7 to £5 and then to £2 10s. Hon. Members will have noted that, as indicated in the recent Price Review, the £2 10s. grant has been discontinued, and the Scheme provides only for a grant of £12 an acre for ploughing up older grassland where the costs involved are higher than normal.
Given that there can be dangers in a number of circumstances in continuous cereal growing, the remedy is not necessarily a long break with a ley of three years or more. A short break in which some other crop is grown can often be equally suitable; and one of the crops which could adequately provide this is field beans, for which in this year's Price Review we have proposed to introduce a grant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I have never heard field beans called rubbish before.
Over the past 15 years, Part I ploughing grant has played a useful part in the agricultural economy, but agricultural practice does not stand still. Other methods are available for helping with rotation problems or for improving permanent grass, and it is proper that this grant should be discontinued and funds diverted to where they can be more effective. In the Price Review, arrangements were accordingly made to give


assistance to the end products, that is livestock and dairy products, leaving it to the farmer to make his choice between the various technical methods open to him for managing his land.
We propose, nevertheless, to retain the grant of £12 an acre, known as Part II grant under previous Schemes. This grant plays a rather different rôle, and in these days, when so much land is being lost to non-agricultural development, it can still play a worth-while part in encouraging farmers to bring land into a fit state for production.
I need draw attention to only one minor change—and this is of administration—in the £12 grant. The Scheme is an annual one, but the operations required to clear this type of land may be spread over more than one year, according to when the farmer has the time and machinery available for the sequence of operations. This grant requires the Minister's prior approval before work is begun, and hon. Members may recall that an amendment was made last year which enabled an approval given under the previous Scheme to be valid for the current Scheme. The purpose of paragraph 3(3) of the draft Scheme is to extend this principle by allowing an approval given under either of the two previous Schemes to remain valid for the current Scheme. The change involves no loss of financial control, and should result in a saving of adminstrative costs.
The House may wish to have the usual figures relating to the ploughing grants. For this purpose, I shall take the financial year 1966/67 because it provides the latest available figures. During that year, in the United Kingdom as a whole almost 1¼ million acres of grassland were ploughed under Part I of the Scheme attracting £5·2 million in grants. Of this 53 per cent. went to England, 28 per cent. to Scotland, 10 per cent. to Northern Ireland and 9 per cent. to Wales. The total sum of Part II grants during the same period was £500,000 in respect of 42,000 acres.
With those figures, Mr. Speaker, I commend these Schemes for the approval of the House.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has gone through this Order with his cus-

tomary brevity, but I think that he was a little casual about it, because it marks the end of the ploughing grant for ordinary temporary leys as opposed to the long-term and more difficult grassland problems, and I had hoped that he would tell us where he thought that the money saved was going in to maintain the income of arable farmers. In the past when it was said that this ploughing grant was perhaps no longer justified, the Government of the day retained it mainly because it served a purpose in channelling income into the industry, without at the same time providing an increase in guaranteed prices which might have altered the trend of production in a way that the Government did not wish.
From what the hon. Gentleman said, one would have supposed that in so far as the area of temporary grass contracted, the arable acreage would have increased, but the fact is that according to the Price Review—and I quote Appendix I Table A—the declining trend of temporary grassland is sharper than any corresponding increase in the arable acreage. During the three years 1964 to 1966, temporary grassland declined from 6,886,000 acres to 6,280,000, a decline of 606,000 acres. During the same period the arable acreage increased by only 102,000 acres, so it appears that half a million acres have gone out of temporary grass into what I suppose is classified as permanent grass.
This could mask, but I do not think it does, a general decline in the intensity of our agriculture, which probably resulted from the discouraging policy adopted by the Government during their first two years in office, and I would like to know whether——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to keep the hon. Member on the narrow path, even if it is a grass path, of order.

Mr. Hill: I hope that I am not transgressing from the path of order, because I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that this Scheme will be adequate to check this undesirable tendency, and I hope he will see to it that steps are taken to reverse the trend which must militate against the productivity of British agriculture as a whole.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: There are one or two questions I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman before


we approve this Order. It he looks at the figures on page 39 of the Annual Price Review he will see that the ploughing grant for the coming year is £3·8 million. He gave us the latest figure for 1966–67, and according to that it is £5·2 million, plus £500,000, which is very nearly the £6·1 million which appears here.

Mr. Mackie: One year runs into another with ploughing grants. This figure of £5·2 million includes nearly a year at the old rate of grant. That is the reason for the difference. A year's grant is the figure shown in the Price Review, which is less.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Where is this Part II grant spread over the country? Is it spread all over the United Kingdom, or only in certain parts? It would be helpful to know where these half million acres are to be found, and whether this will be spread over the country or not.

Mr. Mackie: It is probably my fault. It is £500,000, and 42,000 acres.

Mr. Godman Irvine: The point remains the same. I shall be obliged if the Minister will tell us where we shall find those acres.
As a corollary to this, will those acres which obtain the £12 grant eventually find their way into forestry or are they always planted with an agricultural crop.
In deciding that this is the moment to provide that this Scheme shall deal only with Part II in the coming year, is the Minister satisfied that the original object for which the ploughing grant was formulated—to increase the tillage acreage—has no longer any validity? During last year we had 18,484 acres under arable. We are still not back to the level of 1946. The ploughing grant was started to increase the tillage acreage. The Government say that under the National Plan we should be increasing production and should be producing a major proportion of the required amount of food by 1970. Would it not be a good thing to ensure that the amount of tillage acreage continues to rise?
That is not the position. Page 31 of the White Paper shows that we have not begun to increase the figure. If we have not begun to do this two years after the plan was formulated, is this really the

moment to take action which may have an adverse effect on the tillage acreage? My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) recently pointed out that if we are to keep to the target it is essential to increase production by 50 per cent.
Three things will be uppermost in the mind of the farmer in this respect. The Minister has already referred to the first, namely, a tendency for more permanent pasture. That may be all to the good, but is that what the Minister would like the farmer to have in his mind? That is not quite what he said. If the other idea of taking a plough round the farm and increasing the fertility of the farm by ley farming is not what the Ministry wants, is not this the occasion for the Minister to tell us why this conclusion has been arrived at?
I can remember when it was policy to take a plough round the farm and to put new leys down. In my dairy herd I ran into a period of infertility. After about 18 months, when all the experts had come along to see what was happening and we had been getting all sorts of advice, I had the idea that it might do no harm to put the cows on to the permanent pasture and leave them there for a while. It so happened that the infertility disappeared, and none of the disasters that the experts foresaw occurred. I feel that permanent pasture, if properly managed, has a very great contribution to make. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he agrees, or whether the conclusion to concentrate only on Part 2 of the Order has been arrived at by an entirely different route.
Modern farms are being maintained on a high stocking rate. Only the other day I was talking about a farm where 100 cows were kept on 90 acres. In such circumstances, the right thing may be not to use the plough too often. In any event, there is little opportunity to do so. The recent Price Review contained no encouragement for arable farmers——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to call one of my Chairmen to order, but the hon. Gentleman must keep to the Order under discussion. We are not talking about the Price Review now.

Mr. Godman Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, but I was asking the hon. Gentleman to look at the arable picture as it relates


to these ploughing up grants. If I have transgressed by mentioning the Price Review, I apologise.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the effect of the Scheme on the arable situation. It is taking away another part of the income of many arable farmers. I would refer him to what he said last year, about how, in Scotland, they managed to have 30 years' continuous barley growing quite happily. I am not sure whether he said it was on his farm or on that of some more fortunate Scot. I believe that the hon. Gentleman also farms in England, but do not know whether he has the same good fortune there. In my part of the country, particularly after last year's difficulties, many people would find this story of 30 years' continuous barley difficult to accept.
The hon. Gentleman referred to modern developments generally making the long break unnecessary, and said that the Scheme was to comply with the modern requirements. He said last year that the long break was unnecessary because of mechanical cultivation and chemicals for weed control. In my part of the country certainly, and many others, last year's experience would refute that. Many people would question that continuous corn growing was possible with only a short break. The findings of the research establishments are that a one year break makes the risk of disease worse in corn growing, that a two year break makes it little better and that it has to be three years to be of any use. Perhaps, with this Scheme, his suggestions about the short break will be given further consideration. It would be wrong for that message to go out from the Ministry on this Scheme or at any other time.
On continuous cropping, perhaps the hon. Gentleman has seen the Paper recently delivered at the Farmers' Club, which set out the figures for continuous cropping, the increase in costs and the numbers of units of nitrogen necessary to maintain the yield. The burden of that discussion was to the effect that it was essential to find a proper break which would enable disease to be controlled and fertility maintained. Many people contributed to that discussion, but I would quote only what was said by Mr. John Green, the Chairman of the Agricultural Research Council:

We have got, therefore, to find our way back somehow into grass, which is the natural crop for the greater part of the country.
Later, he went on:
We shall get no assistance from our politicians; because they only want what they want at the moment they want it. The greater the biological forces you can produce on the land you farm, the greater the legitimate surplus you will have to give to the politicians. However, if the politician thinks that he can increase that surplus by ad hoc subsidies that distort the balances and eat into the reserves of fertility that are natural to our geographical situation, he will be making an ass of himself as we have seen the Russians do in full measure. Was this why Lord Townsend once abandoned the highest office in the land to 'invent' the turnip?
The Minister seems to be doing the exact opposite and is, perhaps, suggesting that we do not need the turnip, although he made a passing reference to beans and the subsidy on them. He will have to go a long way to persuade farmers that beans will be an adequate break, and the Scheme may be contributing to a wrong approach being adopted to arable farming.
Has the hon. Gentleman considered the Scheme in the circumstances which may prevail in the next year or two? In the debate which has just taken place, it was found to be not compatible to refer to the debates which have taken place in the last three days. However, has the Scheme been considered purely on an ad hoc basis, or has thought been given to the position that may exist in the coming year should our application to join the E.E.C. be successful?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been tolerant with the hon. Gentleman. I have even admitted the famous "Turnip Townsend", but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, he may not go beyond the Scheme.

Mr. Irvine: I appreciate the relevance of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to make, with great respect, was whether the Scheme will have to be worked out during the period in which the circumstances may be changing. I want the Minister to tell us what, if any, consideration he has given to those possible changes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Scheme is for one year. We shall be discussing some other Scheme some other time. It is this one we are discussing now.

Mr. Irvine: If that is your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, then, of course, I accept it.
Will the Minister say how he feels the Scheme will affect various areas of the country; and in asking this question I have three types of area in mind. The first is that of the small man which, during last year's debate, was found to be concentrated more or less in the South-West. On that occasion, the Minister held the view that if one was removing a certain percentage from a grant, it did not matter whether the recipient was a small or large farmer.
That seemed to me to be an argument which completely missed the point, since 5 per cent. off an income of £500 or £700 a year is a much more significant factor than 5 per cent. off an income of £5,000 a year, and many of us represent small farmers. What position does the Minister envisage the small farmer will find himself in as a result of the Order?
I was in a parish of my constituency recently and found that one farm had 150 acres or more, that two had between 50 and 150 acres, while all the others had less than 50 acres. It is, therefore, on the small man that the Minister should indicate what he feels will be the effect of the Scheme.
The second area contains the group of arable farmers because certain difficulties are arising in the arable areas and I believe that the Scheme may contribute towards them. The third contains the hill farms and livestock-rearing areas, and these farms have particular problems. I ask the hon. Gentleman to see that the money that used to be paid out in this category will be put back into those three areas.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am very sorry to be present at the funeral service of a grant that has served a very useful purpose over many years. I should like the hon. Gentleman to confirm that there will not be the necessity of the 21 days' notification following completion of ploughing, which has been an unnecessary burden on farmers in recent years.
Secondly, I should like clarification of paragraph 11 and of the Explanatory Note. Paragraph 11 says that if there has been a previous renovation grant the ploughing grant is not payable, while the

second paragraph of the Explanatory Note refers to
… the carrying out of the operations (together with any necessary preliminary operations) …".
I quote this because a few years ago I cleaned out an area of scrubland, for which I received the appropriate grant. Then, to my great surprise and disappointment, I was told that because I had had that grant I could not have the ploughing-up grant, as I was not entitled to two grants towards the reclamation of farmland.
I am sorry that the grant is ending, as the ploughing-up subsidy has been regarded by 99 per cent. of farmers as most useful and valuable, because the three-year break and direct reseeding has become an important part of dairy farming. The Government are putting nothing in its place that will adequately recompense for the loss we are suffering tonight.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary went through his opening remarks rather quickly. I do not blame him for that, because the Government are here taking money away from the arable farmer and not giving it to him, so it has nothing to recommend it to the House. We have here a withdrawal of all grants for ploughing other than in exceptional cases. As far as I can see from the Explanatory Note, the land must have been under grass for 12 years —since 1st June, 1955. In my part of the world, and I would say in the great arable belt of eastern England, there will be very few exceptional cases—I know of few in my part of Norolk—that will qualify for the grant.
Many farmers would have welcomed this doing away of the ploughing-up subsidies if we were to draw closer to the European system and pay additional money to the arable land farmers, who now lose this part of their income. There is no recompense in higher prices, and the operation will mean a net loss to the arable farmers. As I have said before, farmers would like to be able to do away with many subsidies if they could see that the prices at the end were fair for what was produced.
I was not quite sure, and I hope the hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the


debate will make clear, how much money will be lost to the farmer in total. In what area will the vast majority be? Probably it will be in eastern England. How much will it be in total—half a million, or how much—which is saved in the cost of the scheme compared with the previous situation? This, of course, must be an estimate, because no one knows how much will be spent under the £12 an acre grant.
I am greatly concerned about the loss of fertility which is bound up with the use of grassland which is put down for a number of years and then ploughed into the soil. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that there are large areas of land in Suffolk and Norfolk which need a break. They need a break and also to have something ploughed back as humus into the topsoil. I cannot think that any large acreage of beans will be grown in the stretch of light land which will take the place of this grassland. It may be that on an Essex farm beans are very popular. Some years ago in my area one of the best farmers who was growing potatoes used to grow a crop of beans, roll them down, muck them on top, and then plough the whole lot in. That was very good preparation, but it was very costly preparation, with no income for a year, for a crop of potatoes.
The loss of ploughing-up grant may induce loss of fertility in the land. It may induce bad practices of continuous corn growing and reduce the production from our most productive area of England, East Anglia and the East Midlands where there is the vast majority of production of arable crops.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider very carefully in the next year or two the steps which can be taken to see that the income from these arable lands is not whittled away but that we have sufficient income to make sure that we can rest the land, and put back some humus into a part of the arable acreage of the lighter lands in East Anglia.

10.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): It would be wrong if I followed all the discussion there has been on this Scheme. At one period we had an extremely careful academic lecture on agriculture and even

an historical reference to "Turnip Townsend". One thing which was missing from the references was that this cut in the ploughing grant has been made against a background of a very good and wise review. It would be wrong to deal with all the excellent aspects of the Review but that could be and should be kept in mind because it plays a very important part in this matter. As we said in another place this was almost the correct moment to finalise and end the grant.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I kept the Opposition from talking about the Price Review. The Minister must not talk about it either.

Mr. Buchan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that and it will save me from answering some of the points which have been raised. This puts a different complexion on the argument. A great deal was made of the question of tillage acreage but tillage acreage has shown not a decline but a steady rise from 11,999,000 acres to 12,104,000 acres.
The £12 grant was limited to operations which clearly are costly but previous scrub clearance will have reduced the cost and rendered that work ineligible.
The total amount which will be saved as a result of the cut will be approximately £1 million this year and £2·8 million next year.
The question arose frequently of the consequences of this change on restoring goodness to the soil. Hon. Members forget that for a long time, before either the Annual Price Review or some of our modern farming methods were known, farmers in any case returned to grass. This change will not prevent those farmers who wish to do so from growing grass. This is particularly so in Scotland. It is a question of the reallocation of the money saved in other and more fruitful directions, in particular, by allowing farmers to decide on the basis of the other allocations what it is best to do with the funds which are then available.
The other aspect is that we have introduced the concept of the break crop and a grant thereon. Discussions will be taking place. It will not be merely the question of field beans under discussion.
Other break crops will be under discussion.
Questions were asked about where the Part II grant goes. It is spent chiefly in the South-West, the West Midlands, the Northern Region, Wales and the hill land areas of Scotland.
I believe that we were right to say that this is the correct moment to finalise the ploughing grants, because good fanners have in any case adopted methods of improving the land surface which have in some ways rendered this grant redundant. It could be argued that it is not correct

economic policy to be giving an incentive to a practice which in any case good farmers should carry out.
With these few words, I commend the Scheme to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Ploughing Grants Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.

Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1967, [draft laid before the House, 19th April], approved.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS)

10.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I beg to move,
That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1967. a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved.
This Scheme, which is similar to the current one, continues for a further year the fertiliser subsidy which the House has approved every year since 1952. As hitherto, subsidy will be paid on chemical fertilisers bought in lots of 4 cwt. or more for use on agricultural land or crops or for growing mushrooms. Subsidy continues to be based upon the phosphoric acid and/or nitrogen content of the fertilisers. No subsidy is paid on potash or on fertilisers wholly derived from organic matter.
The rates of contribution have been reduced to yield a saving in this grant of just under £2 million. This is about 6 per cent. on the estimated expenditure which would otherwise have been incurred during the fertiliser year 1967–68. Nevertheless, we still expect to spend about £30 million on this subsidy during the coming 12 months, and this is much the same as has been paid in each of the past eight years. Taken together with the improved returns to agriculture resulting from the changes made in this year's Review, it should adequately assist farmers to maintain and improve the productivity of their soil.
The new scale of contribution will represent about 25 per cent. of the gross cost of those fertilisers on which subsidy is paid. Furthermore, under the Agriculture Act, which received the Royal Assent yesterday, we shall be proposing to make this up to 50 per cent. of the cost of fertilisers and of spreading them to those who qualify for grants under a Hill Land Improvement Scheme.
This reduction in subsidy was agreed at, this year's annual Price Review and it is in line with steps taken by successive Governments to reduce rates of payment from time to time as the use of fertilisers has grown.
In this connection, I refer briefly to the recent increases in manufacturers' prices for fertilisers. This matter was

thoroughly examined by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, as can be seen from its Report. The Government agreed, in all the circumstances, that increases within the limits indicated by the Board were justified. Against this unwelcome necessity, however, it should be said that compound fertilisers are still offered more cheaply per ton of plant food than they were 10 years ago.
In these intervening years, we have seen significant developments in manufacturing techniques, in the stepping up of competition between suppliers, and in a big increase in demand. It is fair that I should acknowledge the part played by manufacturers and suppliers during this period in meeting the demand at keen prices.
Turning to other matters, in general, the trends which took shape with the introduction of the subsidy in 1952 have continued over the past year. We estimate that uptake in the United Kingdom in 1966–67 will have reached its highest level yet, and we see no reason to doubt, with the incentives provided by the Review, that a further increase will take place in 1967–68.
We think it probable that the demand for nitrogenous fertilisers will continue to rise rather more than for the two other main nutrients, as it has in recent years. There is now an added incentive to use straight nitrogen, since these fertilisers have not been affected by the recent price increases. I expect that grassland farmers especially will take advantage of this and the general incentives now offered to them and exploit more fully the profitability of using larger quantities of fertilisers to raise their grass output.
In this matter, it is encouraging to see the publicity and advisory effort from various quarters to overcome what seems to have been a certain reluctance in liming and fertilising our grasslands. At the same time, while we have got to the stage, due to past response to this subsidy, where the increased use of fertilisers on arable crops offers, perhaps, somewhat less spectacular possibilities, there is still scope on many farms for improving yields with heavier and timely applications of fertilisers. The advisory officers of the agriculture departments are readily available to any farmer who would like help in assessing the requirements of his farm.
I am sure that the House will agree that a high and ever-growing rate of fertiliser use is essential if our agricultural industry is to maintain its record of productivity and that this subsidy should continue. I ask the House, therefore, to approve the Scheme.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: So many critical comments about the manufacturers have been made down the years by hon. Members opposite when they were on this side that I am glad to join in the tribute which the hon. Gentleman paid to them. The part which has been played by the fertiliser manufacturers has been most distinguished, in what I describe as a considerable combined operation, in which plant breeders and chemists, engineers and the whole farming community have joined, which has resulted in an unexampled increase in productivity. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that prices have at last had to be raised, but it is a considerable tribute to the manufacturers that, for six years running, they managed not just to keep prices at the level they were but to reduce them. I am sure that the increase would have been much greater this year but for the considerable capital investment which they have made.
I am a little puzzled by paragraph 52 of the Price Review White Paper, where we are told that fertiliser consumption in general has risen. According to the latest volume of the fertiliser statistics, in 1965–66 the tons of plant food used were 32,000 down on 1964–65, a drop of just over 2 per cent. This is an indication of which the Government should take serious note.
Paragraph 53 of the same White Paper states that the rise in price was anticipated. It is a rise of 6 per cent. But the Government excused themselves from taking any action to counter it last February on the ground that the bulk of fertilisers had already been bought. Is that really so? My impression of the fertiliser trade last year was that with the appalling rate of interest—because of the Government's high interest rate policy—that farmers were having to pay on overdrafts, which would be needed if large supplies of fertilisers were to be laid in, a large number of farmers did not buy their fertiliser in on early

delivery. Even if they had—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give us some figures—the Government concede that the increase this season would hit the grassland farmer and those top-dressing grain most heavily because it is a late operation. Undoubtedly the upland hill man with a small income would be hit, as his grass comes late.
I think that there was a very good case for a subsidy cut of 7 per cent. being withheld in a year in which the Government admit that they knew that there was to be a price increase. The calculations that I have made are that a fertiliser compound with a gross cost of £37 a ton will mean a net increase of about 9s. on the average acre of grain; about 24s. per acre on potatoes; and about 27s. 6d. per acre of sugar beet.
The Under-Secretary of State based a great many hopes of an increase in the sugar beet acreage in Scotland on what he called the "generous allocation" of an extra 2s. 6d. per ton. To give 2s. 6d. a ton and take away 27s. 6d. an acre does not seem to me to be the best way of encouraging the sugar beet industry in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: I said that the introduction of the half-crown by us, plus the restoration of the transport subvention which had been slashed by the party opposite three years ago, would begin to restore the position which they had made so disastrous.

Mr. Stodart: The Under-Secretary of State did not mention that the Government are imposing an increased cost of 27s. 6d. by cutting the fertiliser subsidy, and it is fair to put that into the scales.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the debate, to say whether he agrees with me that we should take note that this is the first year in which the use of potash and phosphate has fallen. Hitherto, a substantial increase in nitrogen has always been accompanied by a slightly smaller increase in potash and phosphate. We have now a reduced use of potash and phosphate partnering a rise in the use of nitrogen.
The use of potash is down by 3½ per cent. It is true that the potato acreage fell by 75 thousand acres, but that alone could not account for a 3½ per cent. drop.


It should have accounted for no more than a 1 per cent. fall. With the cereal acreage expanding, and certain to expand more if our application for entry into the Common Market succeeds, this needs to be watched carefully. The best soils, having had good fertiliser applications for many years, are now creating good soil stati of potash and phosphate. But one cannot depend for future yields on past residues.
There is a very noticeable loss of balance between the use of nitrogen, potash and phosphate in England. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to comment on that. If one takes the nitrogen norm at one, England is now using 0·6 of phosphate and 0·7 of potash. Wales uses 1·4 of phosphate and 0·8 of potash, and Scotland is almost level. Yet only six years ago England was precisely level at 1:1:1 as well.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is something that probably ought to be watched. I agree that our expenditure on fertilisers is still low—he made the point about the cost of fertilisers—as a proportion of farming's gross total output. We use 4·75 per cent. in the United Kingdom, Denmark uses 5·8 per cent. and Finland 6·65 per cent.
One must appreciate that an increase of about 40 per cent. in the application of fertilisers to grain over the last six years gave increased yields of between 30 and 35 per cent. The more concentrated fertilisers become, the more important it is that they should be used with great precision. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the advisory services go out of their way to advise farmers on the correct fertiliser use—not just for a farmer to say "I want a compound fertiliser" but explaining to him how important it is to have one, two or three for a particular crop?
With fertilisers as available as they are, it is essential that good implements should be used and kept in good use for distributing them and that these should not be allowed to stand to corrode. It is very well worth while buying a first-class distributor in order to place fertiliser on the land with the greatest accuracy and precision. This is something that has shown itself to be valuable to husbandry.
Although I regret the cuts in this subsidy in this year of increased costs, I shall

not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the Order.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: Whilst I was sad at the loss of the ploughing grant which we discussed a few moments ago, I am very angry at this cut in fertiliser subsidy. It is not often that I even slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) but I feel strongly about this cut.
Sometimes we in this House have short memories and we must not forget that the past farming year has been one of the worst for many years. For the Government now to cut the subsidy is crass incompetence. The Government must know that not only have they cut this subsidy; earlier in this farming year there was a further reduction in the lime subsidy—and lime is the key to fertiliser application. Thus we have had a double cut in the establishment of growth in grain with grass and roots.
The Government must know, too, that farmers are in a vicious circle and that they must use fertilisers. There is no alternative for them. The Government know that it is a false economy not to use fertilisers. Yet in many cases farmers are already over their overdraft limits and are in an impossible position in not being able to afford fertilisers which they should now be applying. Now, after this extremely difficult 12 months, which followed an equally difficult year, we are to have a 7 per cent. cut in subsidy despite a 6 per cent. increase in costs. The Government have treated agriculture extremely shabbily and this Scheme is something of which they cannot be very proud.
I would like to mention one point about the incredible paper chase that the Government have brewed up over the years for payment of the subsidy. The supplier has to send a long, complicated form to the buyer who then has to fill it up, put it in an envelope, stick stamps on it and send it to the local office of the Department of Agriculture. The local office has, presumably, to look at it and then send it either to Edinburgh, or, I think, to Guildford. It has to be checked again and the payment notice sent out either to the supplier or buyer and the advice notice to the party that does not receive payment. This seems to be an expensive method of paying


what is becoming a very paltry subsidy.
In this computer age we hear so much about from this Government there must be some simpler method of paying the subsidy. The cost to the Exchequer and the farmer must be a considerable sum in total.
I feel that the Government have again let down farming and that is something which is becoming all too frequent. I am sorry that we have to approve tonight a further diminution in farmers' incomes.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I must admit that I do not very often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), but on this occasion I would very much like to oppose the Scheme. The same arguments apply as applied to the Ploughing Grants Scheme. This is another cut in fanners' incomes.
We heard from the Under-Secretary how the Price Review had been so good, but this is the second of two considerable cuts in farmers' incomes. On this occasion the cut is £2 million and on the last occasion it was £2 million.
As has been said before, this cut in subsidies for fertilisers has to be taken in conjunction with the increases in prices of fertilisers which have been allowed by the Government in the same year. Altogether, this adds up to a very costly increase for some of our most expensive crops, like potatoes and sugar beet, both of which need large quantities of fertilisers, and the field vegetable crops, which do not have the benefit of any price guarantee arrangements. I refer, of course, to vegetable crops like carrots, onions, celery and lettuce which need considerable quantities of fertilisers. As I have said, the profitability of the vast majority of arable lands of the east of the country will be reduced.
This, with lower prices of fertilisers on the Continent—I believe that they are about £4 a ton less than our prices—would put us into a bad competitive position if at the same time we did not have an increase in prices for cereals to bring

us closer to cereal prices in Europe, which we may enter. This has been another blow to the farmers in my district and to all other arable farmers, and I cannot understand how it can be greeted with any pleasure or approval.
The Parliamentary Secretary was asked what advice his Ministry gave to farmers about the right types of fertilisers to use. In my district there has been a large increase in the use of liquid fertilisers. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any information about the cost worth of liquid fertilisers, their comparable unit costs, and does the Ministry consider that liquid fertilisers rather than granular fertilisers should be used in greater quantities?
The lands which need these fertilisers, which need keeping in good heart with both organic and other fertilisers, have been made considerably less profitable over the last few years. I hope that that trend will be reversed over the next few years. I am very keen that there should be more livestock on the farms, but we cannot afford to neglect the arable crops, and that is what will happen if we keep increasing costs without increasing the end prices of crops grown on these lands.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that this Scheme is not popular on this side of the House, for the reasons which my hon. Friends have adduced. It will clearly not help ordinary arable farmers who will have higher costs and not receive any advantage in prices.
One can summarise the position best by asking the Parliamentary Secretary what the trends are. What is the trend in the use of fertiliser on arable crops, tillage first and then on grassland as a whole? Having told us that, can he say what advice he gets from the National Agricultural Advisory Service as to the optimum amounts of fertiliser to use on arable crops and grassland? I think that there is still a fairly large gap which the Order will not encourage farmers to make good.
When one is considering this Scheme in this year, one inevitably thinks of comparisons with the countries with which we are now competing for exports and imports and with whom soon, in the measurable future, we may be competing


as partners. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he can tell us about the relative use made of fertilisers by the countries in the European Economic Community. The best information that I have is based on figures given in a recent survey carried out by I.C.I., quoting the use of fertilisers and pesticides as a percentage of farm expenses. It says that the United Kingdom figure is 8 per cent., the Netherlands 8 per cent., Belgium 16 per cent., France 17 per cent., Italy 14 per cent. and Germany 11 per cent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that it is in order, in considering this Scheme, to analyse the comparative costs in the Common Market countries.

Mr. Hill: With respect, I was hoping that I could ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this, because within the lifetime of this Scheme it will be called in question as to whether, as a production grant, it is something which would be allowed under the agricultural policy cf the Community which we have applied to join. There is at the moment great doubt about whether this kind of production grant would qualify. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in the life of this Scheme, will certainly find out what the relative position is and endeavour to discover to what extent it is likely to be eligible.
Does it distort fair competition, or is it a means of improving the technical development of agriculture? I would have submitted that this is something that the Government are under a very great duty to find out, and to inform us of in detail, certainly when any subsequent Scheme comes up to succeed it, although I would hope that this would be done at a considerably earlier date.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In discussing this Scheme we cannot discuss hypothetical questions as to what the position may be on some subsequent Scheme. This Scheme merely relates to the year beginning 1st June, 1967. It seems inconceivable that any comparison with Common Market arrangements can affect the merits or otherwise of this Scheme.

Mr. Hill: With respect, I would have thought that this Scheme would be under

discussion within its own lifetime, and I would very much hope that the Minister of Agriculture would defend it as a desirable production grant to retain. I will leave it at that.
The question of horticulture is always prominent when we discuss fertilisers, because every increase in the price of fertilisers falls directly upon horticultural growers and there is no recoupment, because no horticultural produce has the benefit of any guaranteed price.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what assessments he has made of the added cost that the horticultural industry would have to bear in that connection because horticulture is a relatively greater user of potash. I ask him again whether the Government are likely to find it possible to extend the subsidy to potash. I agree that this has been difficult in the past: successive Governments have said so. On the other hand, the supply position is said to have become more diverse and stronger, and eloquent as Labour spokesmen were in opposition about the desirability of extending this, they have not, as far as I can judge, taken any active steps now that they are in office. We are disappointed that this Scheme reduces the amount of subsidy because we believe it is important that British agriculture should make use of fertilisers up to the optimum level.

11.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who called a Count a few minutes ago, was anxious that as many hon. Members as possible should hear the debate, but he has now left the Chamber, as have other hon. Members who have made their apologies to me for not being here.
Perhaps I might point out to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that the cut in the fertiliser subsidy, in the same way as the cut in the ploughing grant, must be looked at against the background of the Price Review, which was a good one, I think the hon. Gentleman must admit, leaving as it did £40 million net to the farming community. Treating this cut as a separate item gets us nowhere.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) paid a tribute to manufacturers. I agree that they have done a good job. Perhaps I might deal with one point made by the hon. Gentleman. Statutory Instruments of this type, which always seem to come on late at night, provide us with a good opportunity—thanks to the good offices of the occupant of the Chair—to have a more wide-ranging debate than we are supposed to have, and the hon. Gentleman used a light stick with which to beat the Government, though some of his hon. Friends would have liked him to have used a much heavier one.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the cost of fertilisers. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, they are cheaper today than they were 10 years ago, in spite of various cuts in subsidy. As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been an increase in the use of sulphates, and a decrease in the use of phosphates and potash, and he wondered why this was so. He asked whether the N.A.A.S. gave advice about the correct amounts to use. I am convinced that one reason—though not the sole reason—why there has been a drop in the use of potash and phosphate is that many of us—and I was one of the sinners—were using too much. Recently I was told to use a little less of these and a little more sulphate. Anyway, the drop in the use of these items is something about which we need not worry unduly.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)—I know why he is not here—shouted "Rubbish" two or three times when I spoke earlier. I cannot remember what it was in connection with, so it could not have been important. He said that last year was the worst year ever for farming. Had I wanted to, I could have said "Rubbish" when he said that, because if he had farmed from 1926 to 1934 he would have known that he was talking rubbish. I do not think that I need say any more about that, except that he, too, would not look at this Scheme against the background of the Price Review. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has said—and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree—that the policy of the party opposite is to put up the prices

of the end products. This is what we have done, and it makes nonsense of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest dealt with arable crops rather than horticulture. The percentage cut is equally small. With regard to liquid fertilisers, the unit value of the product is paid the same subsidy. We cannot recommend any particular brand, but our advisers would give anyone advice. There is a case for using liquid fertiliser in dry weather, but I personally can see little advantage apart from the cost.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) asked where all the fertiliser went. He asked a few days ago for figures about the nationality of land owners and said that it was time we had a "Domesday Book." We might perhaps get that information; but as to the other point, if he is prepared to pay for that sort of statistic, I will do what I can, but do not know how useful it would be. I do not propose to touch on his other point about the Common Market, as you ruled that out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We know that the horticutural industry is a large user of fertilisers, but its percentage is still lower than agriculture's. We have discussed fair play for horticulture with the N.F.U. because of the rise in the price of fertiliser and the slight reduction that we have made in the subsidy. In the context of the whole picture, it is quite small. The cost of the subsidy is still over £30 million, however, and the price is still lower than 10 years ago. It is not for the Ministry to force farmers to use something. They must decide on the amount of fertilisers they need for the crops and stocks they have.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, Southwest wanted to know what would maintain fertility. The answer might be that farmers in his area should return to what their fathers did and what he does—is, to keeping cattle and sheep and increase fertility——

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The hon. Gentleman must think in terms of defending this Scheme and this practice; unless he finds the information I asked for through his civil servants, he will not be able to do his job.

Mr. Mackie: I cannot do so tonight, but I will give the matter consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.